Preamble

The House met at half past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Social Security Reform

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to ask leave to present a petition on behalf of over 5,000 residents of Glasgow, mostly of the Hillhead division. The petition states:
legislation based on the 'Reform of Social Security—Programme for Action' White Paper would be extremely detrimental to the residents of the United Kingdom who are in receipt of Social Security benefits. Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do not pass legislation arising out of the Reform of Social Security White Paper. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg leave formally to present a petition on behalf of some 60,000 of my constituents. Because I want it to be formally incorporated into the proceedings of the House, I shall ask the Clerk to read the body of the petition.

THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE read the petition, which was as follows:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble petition of the residents of the villages of Fulbeck, Leadenham, Caythorpe, Brant Broughton, Brandon, Stubton, Fenton, Beckingham, Stragglethorpe, and other places in the counties of Lincoln and Nottingham.
Sheweth that your petitioners are wholly opposed to the proposal announced by Nirex to consider Fulbeck airfield as a possible site for the disposal of nuclear waste material; that your petitioners are also opposed to Nirex carrying out exploratory works at Fulbeck airfield; that your petitioners do not believe that burial in shallow trenches is a proper or safe way of disposing of intermediate nuclear waste material. Also that your petitioners do not accept that the geology or hydrology to be found at Fulbeck airfield are such as to make safe burial of short life intermediate nuclear waste material possible. Further, your petitioners assert that the roads in the area are inadequate for the safe transport of radioactive material. Your petitioners are also concerned by the proximity of dwelling houses to the proposed site and the impact upon their value of the proposal announced by Nirex.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall not approve any order which would cause or allow Nirex to carry out any works whatsoever at Fulbeck airfield.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Obscene Publications (Protection of Children, etc.) (Amendment) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ms. Clare Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to object, to and to ask you to reconsider, your selection for today. You have not selected my new clause that seeks to amend the Bill, and I do not think that the reasons that I have heard are reasonable ones.
My attempt to amend the Bill arose from the provisions of the Bill as put before the House on Second Reading, which included, for example, a list of visual images that were to be accounted obscene. I was not on the Committee, so my next chance to amend the Bill arises on Report, but a new clause related to the Bill as originally drafted is not to be accepted for discussion. There is enormous public feeling about this matter. When there is strong feeling outside that there should be some change in the law, but the matter cannot be discussed in the House, the House is brought into disrepute.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Lady.
I have explained to her why I could not accept her new clause. As she knows, her amendment is starred and was tabled only yesterday. The Bill was reported more than 10 days ago and it is not normally my practice to select starred amendments. It is quite in order for the hon. Lady to advance her arguments during the debate on the amendments on the Order Paper that have been selected.

Clause 1

ACT TO APPLY TO TELEVISION AND SOUND BROADCASTING

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6 at end insert:
'Provided that nothing in Section 1 shall be construed as affecting the responsibilities of the Governors of the BBC, or the duties of the members of the Independent Broadcasting Authority under the Broadcasting Act 1981 or of the cable authority under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984'.
I would never dream of questioning in any way either the decisions of the House or the decisions that are taken by you, Mr. Speaker, on its behalf. You are a remarkable Speaker, by whom the House is extremely well served. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) illustrates some of the difficulties that we faced during the passage of the Bill.
When the Bill first came before the House I believed that there would be a fairly balanced examination, not just of the implications of changing the law to put extra restrictions on the broadcasting of material or on the display of indecent magazines, but at least, in a fairly responsible way, of the problems that any legislature faces when it is legislating for a society that changes its measure of moral interpretation over the years and which alters its attitude. In legislating, we must remain both reasonable and acceptable to the great bulk of the people.
The Bill has not been conceived or examined in that light or in that manner. From the beginning we have seen a demonstration of a number of strongly held prejudices. We have heard from many hon. Members that the need to take action on certain services such as broadcasting arose because of great abuses and out of the difficulties that are faced day by day by ordinary families seeking to protect themselves, and especially their children, from obscene material. If that is so, there is a great responsibility on the House to produce evidence and not just to say, "I am offended by some of the things I see and I would not want my children to see them."
We need to produce hard, detailed evidence and such evidence has been sadly lacking, especially in relation to the broadcasting authorities, from the time that we started to look at this legislation. We have had demonstrations of items to which hon. Members have objected, but there is always a danger in Members waxing eloquently and indignantly about broadcasting. To start with, very few hon. Members see much television. If we asked hon. Members how many hours of broadcasting or even narrowcasting they saw in a month, they would find great difficulty in demonstrating that they had seen anything like one hundredth of the material that is normally seen by our constituents.

Mr. Tim Brinton: The hon. Lady speaks about the difficulty hon. Members have in seeing much television. Because of the hours that we work, that is right, but is there not the other difficulty exhibited in the Bill that all we have seen are the two main offenders in the eyes of the supporters of this Bill—the worst extracts of two films that went out at midnight on Channel 4?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point, and it underlines what worries me. On Second Reading we heard constantly about two programmes and some hon. Members have since watched extracts from them. I certainly did not see the whole of one film because I was bored by it and turned it off. Before we change legislation that covers our broadcasting authorities, we have to be sure not only that we have a reason to do so, but that we can demonstrate that those broadcasting authorities are not fulfilling their duties and are not carrying out the tasks set for them after considerable care and examination by the House. We have arrived at this point in Third Reading without that ever having been demonstrated.
We had a most interesting and unique Committee stage and we went forwards and backwards putting little changes into the Bill. As a result, the Bill that we are now debating bears little resemblance to the one that we debated on Second Reading. It is the function of the House to change legislation for the better, but to change the inadequate for the inadequate is extraordinary. The amendment seeks to make it clear that we will look at the existing legislation and accept that both the BBC and the IBA have their duties clearly laid out in existing legislation. So far, we have not demonstrated that those authorities are not doing the job that they are meant to do. That is the most important point.
This may be the moment for me to say somehing about matters that have worried me for some time. There is a concerted attempt on the part of a quite small pressure

lobby to change a great deal of the legislation on the basis of that lobby's prejudices. That is quite legitimate and I have no objection to it, as long as the House is perfectly well aware of the fact that it is being pressured. I often ask myself if we are not changing the whole climate in which we examine broadcast material. I am not at all sure who the members of the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association are, but I am sure that they are all upstanding and noble people. Whoever they are, they have been behind a concerted attempt through this legislation to change the attitude of the House towards the broadcasting authorities.[Interruption.] I am happy to have that confirmed by hon. Gentlemen on the Government side, but they cannot demonstrate that the broadcasting authorities are not doing what they are supposed to do.
Where is the evidence of inadequate broadcasting control? We have gone through the whole Committee stage and I have seen no such evidence. Where are the names? In Committee I asked for hard evidence of these great obscenities eternally pumped out by both broadcasting authorities, and I was handed a most bizarre and amusing list containing adjectives that are common on most shop floors in Britain. The temptation to read it into the record was quite strong, but I resisted that temptation because it is about time that the House grew up in its attitude to important control. We are not here to write on to the statute book our own moral hang-ups; we are here to frame legislation that is sensible and balanced.

Mr. William Cash: Will the hon. Lady accept that in an article written by Michael Winner he says:
Few doubted that Channel 4's screening of 'Sebastiane' was an error.
He says exactly the opposite of the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I have the honour to know Mr. Michael Winner extremely well.

Mr. Brinton: Not too well.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I know him very well. One of my few criticisms of him is that he is a Conservative, but he will grow out of that eventually. I am pleased that he has been quoted, because "Sebastiane" was the only film, apart from "Jubilee", that was quoted throughout the passage of the Bill. It was shown very late at night and it illustrates the point I am making. We are proposing to change the entire responsibilities of the broadcasting authorities because two films upset some Members of Parliament.
I am talking about something that is very important. Broadcasting authorities that fulfil their duties must be prepared to produce guidelines that they stick to and that grade material throughout a 24-hour period. After all, we are often talking about more than 18 hours of broadcasting per day. The authorities must try to programme so that the majority of people can enjoy the material. But today we seem to be saying that, no matter what time of the day or night the material is broadcast, it must be acceptable to children, because some children are up at midnight or even after that. On that basis, it does not matter what sort of material adults wish to see, as long as there is any possibility that one inadequate parent allows his child to stay up later than is normal for children. Apparently, if that happens we must change the law to protect that child. That is an exceedingly odd argument.
The other argument used by Conservative Members is that one need not even be present if a video recorder is used, and so long as the material broadcast is capable of being recorded and played back, it must conform with a viewing association's view of what constitutes adult material. That is extraordinary and very disquieting. It represents direct censorship of any material other than that which is suitable for showing to a small child.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: rose—

Mrs. Dunwoody: I give way to our own Jack in the box.

Mr. Hayes: I find myself in the embarrassing position of entirely agreeing with what the hon. Lady says—

Mrs. Dunwoody: Sit down; I can't bear it.

Mr. Hayes: I am sure that I will eventually grow out of it. But the position is even worse than the hon. Lady has described. Although the Bill was introduced with the best of intentions, it has tried to solve the problem by invoking one of the worst pieces of legislation to be on the statute book. That legislation is wholly discredited and unworkable and is universally accepted as such. I refer to the Obscene Publications Act.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I might have got a round to that point, if the hon. Gentleman had given me the opportunity to do so. But it is important to consider how the IBA and the BBC operate. I do not have the greatest admiration for the judgment of journalists. Indeed, I believe it to be sadly lacking on most important issues. However, before we change the law, we should be clear about what happens now. I shall tell hon. Members what the IBA says, because unlike the BBC, it has gone to great trouble to ensure that we have a clear statement of its viewing policy. The IBA's statement is quite helpful, because it says things that amount to self-censorship being operated before the material is broadcast.
It is the IBA's aim not to broadcast material that is unsuitable for children at times when large numbers of children are viewing. The full text of the IBA's viewing policy, which forms part of the guidelines, makes it clear that the IBA believes that family viewing policy means that programmes are scheduled carefully throughout the evening to take account of the changing proportion of children and adult viewers and the responsibilities that parents should exercise as the evening progresses. The IBA also points out that that policy would be seriously prejudiced by the Bill.
If the Bill was enacted, all programmes would have to be suitable for children, as it makes no distinction between viewing at different times of the day or night. The IBA points out that it is required to make value judgments at every level. If programmes go out for 18 hours a day, some programmes will obviously anger individual hon. Members. The sort of objections that I might make would probably be quite different from the objections of others hon. Members, who seem more concerned about sex.
In am most concerned about violence and the constant conditioning that goes on. Some Conservative Members seems to find that perfectly acceptable, because the violence is shown in a sanitised American way that gives the impression that people can be thrown around the screen, that cars can be driven 18 times through any crash and that automatic weapons can be used with the victims being able to get up and walk away. As a good trade

unionist I might see some reason for producing constant work for stuntmen, but that would be the only justification for many of those television programmes.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does not my hon. Friend's point go even further than that? Sometimes the portrayal of violence in an extremely shocking and revolting way, such as occurred—here I do not disagree with Conservative Members—in parts of "Jubilee" can sometimes have a far less damaging effect on those watching just because it produces revulsion, than the sanitised violence to which she has referred.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Hon. Members talk about violence, but not about the programmes that go out week after week that somehow give the impression that it is all right to knock someone six foot in the air and for him to break a bone.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments that the hon. Lady has just expressed. But what steps does she believe should be taken, as clearly present arrangements are not working very well?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The broadcasting authorities have guidelines. The IBA clearly sets out what is regarded as an offence to good taste and decency, and what is regarded as a portrayal of violence. But how often have Conservative Members objected to programmes such as "The A-Team" which come out every week? How often do they bother to sit down to write to the directors of the various companies saying that the implications of a programme are extraordinarily violent and amoral, because they suggest to young people that certain things are acceptable as long as the stuntman eventually gets up without any blood being split or obvious damage?
Such programmes are deadening. They alienate people over a long period of time, then they become the norm, and people think that that is really what happens. If we change the legislation in this way, that will not be affected—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members agree with me, they should tell me why they are seeking to change the law in such an inadequate way.

Mr. Robert Key: Will the hon. Lady answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)? She says that programmes such as "The A-Team" become acceptable. That is our argument in favour of the Bill. What does she think should be done?

Mrs. Dunwoody: With the greatest respect, that is not the hon. Gentleman's argument for the Bill. There was never any suggestion that the Bill was aimed at such programmes. When we asked what he intended to do about the constant drip drip of violence, we were told that that was acceptable, because it was, in effect, sanitised. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for, Ladywood has had to table amendments to the Bill because she feels that it has created a moral ambience that exploits women or that produces an atmosphere in which females are somehow only part of the sex fantasies of middle-aged men.

Mr. Chris Smith: In response to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), will not my hon. Friend say that the extension of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 to cover radio broadcasting and television will not do anything to meet the problem caused by the constant drip, drip of


violence witnessed in "The A-Team" and other programmes? There is no way in which one could say that such programmes tend to deprave and corrupt those watching them, within the terms of the law as it is understood.

Mrs. Dunwoody: My hon. Friend has described the real position. Some of us remember the absurdity of the trials under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, the numbers of people who were called as experts, the extreme cost and length of the trials which took place—only to prove, in the final analysis, that human beings are much more difficult to corrupt by sex than we had ever thought.
It is clear from the IBA code exactly what matters the authority considers to be important. There is a whole section, for example, on presentation and the young and vulnerable which I believe is very sensible. It is important that we should allow the IBA to exercise its role in a responsible and adequate manner.
10 am
The BBC has similar controls imposed upon it. If there is consistent evidence of failure on the part of those authorities, individual Members should be bringing those matters to the authorities' attention all the time.

Ms. Clare Short: rose—

Mrs. Dunwoody: Hon. Members should not come to the House claiming that individual films are offensive and that therefore we must change the way the authorities operate.

Ms. Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no problem about obscene sexual material appearing on television. I did not see the two films which so upset Conservative Members. However, I believe that the drip, drip of sanitised violence makes that violence normal and shapes children's thinking and attitudes to violence. Can we not deal with that problem by considering the guidelines, and should we not consider amending them to require the BBC and the IBA to minimise the number of programmes showing repetitive and sanitised violence? Should we not be seeking that reform?

Mrs. Dunwoody: There are a number of ways in which we could bring pressure to bear on the broadcasting authorities. It is perfectly possible to do that and I believe that there is already a great deal of self-censorship not only on sex and violence but also, I am sorry to say, about politics. There have been occasions during the past three years when the evidence has shown that the broadcasting authorities, faced with a programme which they believe might be politically sensitive, imposed self-censorship. Often it was only the reaction of the workers within the organisations which caused the material to be shown.
We do not need to change the law; we simply need to change the way in which we proceed. That is the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) was making very clearly.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Would the hon. Lady apprecciate that the drip, drip aspect of violence is not disputed but that many people are absolutely fed up with pious thoughts and no action? The measures suggested in the Bill are a way for those who are in despair over inaction in the face of pious thoughts, to have recourse to action themselves.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The difficulty about that argument is that we should not deal with futility by doing something that is even more futile. That would happen under the Bill as it stands. Frankly, that has been my objection to this nonsense from the beginning.
I care about children and pornography. The suggestion that somehow or other we should produce a Bill with a grandiose sounding title and put it on to the statute book, is not sufficient. Some people would run a coach and horses through the legislation, and it may be so badly drafted that any lawyer worth his salt could get away with anything he wants. It must be wrong, in the face of that, for an hon. Member to return to his constituency party, self-satisfied and happy on a Friday and say, "I have personally helped with the passage of a new Bill onto the statute book." The fact that that Bill is even more stupid than the previous Bill, does not say much for the intelligence of the House of Commons.

Mrs. Bottomley: Is that not preferable to returning to one's constituency party and saying, "I have personally prevented the Bill from reaching the statute book?"

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is a matter of attitude. I think that my constituents send me to the House to frame good, workable and intelligent legislation. If they only send me here in order to make speeches which satisfy my ego, I do not know why I am here. I could go and wait in my bathroom or lavatory and do something more constructive.
We must make that distinction. We must realise that those who support gesture politics stand a real risk of the rest of the House saying that that is what it is—simply a gesture.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but, we must get back to the amendment. We should be dealing with the responsibilities of the governors.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a terrible temptation to answer points raised by one's opposite numbers which causes me to stray from the issue under consideration.
The Obscene Publications Act 1959 will in no way improve or cover the responsibilities of the IBA or the BBC. There are existing powers which ensure that the material that is broadcast can be monitored. I do not believe in control and I believe that the Houses of Parliament get into difficulty when they try to monitor every programme that is broadcast. Many of us remember the 1930s and 1940s and what happens when the State seeks to control the minds and thoughts of people who are responsible for broadcasting material.
The authorities must be given clear guidelines—and they already have those. They must be told that the guidelines state their responsibilities, and they must be allowed to behave in a way which demonstrates that they understand their responsibilities. Simply quoting two films from the many hundreds of hours of broadcasting does not demonstrate that either of the broadcasting authorities are failing in their duties. That is what horrifies me about the Bill. We have had a discussion redolent of that kind of prejudice without any real evidence or facts.
The least that we can do is accept the amendment. If we do not accept the amendment, if it is not properly drafted in some way, we should make it clear that the IBA and the BBC at present have adequate machinery to


organise their affairs so that they are not offensive to the bulk of the people and to ensure that they can operate without always fearing prosecution by any particular bigot. Perhaps it was unkind of me to say "bigot", although the world is full of eccentrics who see obscenity where ordinary people do not. People with real psychiatric problems should not have the opportunity to prosecute the IBA and the BBC on the basis of something that they thought they saw late at night on a programme.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I am following the hon. Lady's comments with interest and I believe that she is making an important point. The obligations under the Broadcasting Act 1981 upon the IBA and the governors of the BBC are much tighter than the requirements of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. As the hon. Lady said, it is therefore very important to reassert that those Acts continue to apply. I would like to reassure her that nothing in the Bill, if it is enacted without the hon. Lady's amendment, will in any sense affect the obligations of the IBA and the governors of the BBC to apply a much stricter code than anything that is contained in the 1959 Act.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am happy to have that reassurance. However, can the Minister also assure me that individual pressure groups will not be able to take action against the broadcasting authorities without proper evidence, by using the Obscene Publications Act? If that happens we will open the door to an extraordinary series of long litigations which will not improve or clarify the existing position but will muddy the waters to such an extent that people will not know what is acceptable and what is not.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: rose—

Mr. Mellor: I am sure that my hon. Friend was probably about to make the same point as me, as he is a lawyer. The hon. Lady has again raised an important point about bringing prosecutions; that matter will have to have the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mrs. Dunwoody: We can be comforted by the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions, judging by the speed with which he acted in certain cases in the National Health Service, hardly rushes to respond to pressures. However, hope that that will be sufficient for us.
I believe that the amendment would help, and I hope that the House will be prepared to accept it.
I have sat through the passage of the Bill and I am still not clear what was in the mind of the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) when he brought it forward. The flexibility which he has shown in removing and reinstating clauses has made it clear that we are debating a different Bill now from the one which was before the House on Second Reading. The Bill as it stands has a different import from the original measure. At the end of the day it would be absurd if all that came out of our many hours of examination of the matters pertaining to the Bill was a change in the way that the broadcasting authorities operate which would put them more at risk and would not overcome the real problems that have been debated by some of the more sensible Conservative Members.
If the House passes the Bill in its existing form, we will be into gesture politics with a vengeance. There has been no clear examination of the real difficulties surrounding the portrayal of violence on television. No real effort has been made to ascertain how the Bill will improve and

protect children. In debating this mish-mash of nonsense we are giving it weight, responsibility and seriousness that it does not deserve. I hope that the amendment will be accepted, because it will make it clear that we are not inadvertently making major changes without endeavouring to make them responsible and sensible.

Mr. Churchill: First, I express my gratitude to the members of Standing Committee C for their helpful and constructive approach to the Bill. I have no doubt that the Bill has emerged from Committee significantly improved and I wish to acknowledge that fact. The Bill will fulfil the twin objectives with which I set out, which were to remove the specific exemption that applies uniquely to broadcasting, including television, from the provisions of the 1981 Act, and to make the more explicit sex magazines less accessible to children and young persons.
This is a modest Bill and I make no extravagant claims for what it would achieve. If enacted, I believe that it would help to protect children at an emotionally vulnerable age. I thank the members of the public who have written in their hundreds, with 9:1 in support of the Bill.

Mrs. Dunwoody: How many?

Mr. Churchill: I have received nearly 1,000 letters of support.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has received that number of letters. Perhaps he will tell us how many he received on the Shops Bill? Many of us received nearly 1,000 letters both for and against that Bill.

Mr. Churchill: I received about 50 letters on the Shops Bill.

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose—

Mr. Churchill: If the hon. Lady would forgive me—

Mrs. Dunwoody: No, I would not.

Ms. Clare Short: The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) may be interested when I tell him that I have received 3,452 letters of support for my proposal in new clause 1 and amendment No. 25, and only 30 in opposition to it.

Mr. Churchill: I shall turn to that issue at a later stage when we deal with other amendments.
There is a broad measure of support throughout the country for the Bill and for something to be done to pull up the broadcasters and remind them rather more firmly than has been the case in recent years of their responsibilities to Parliament and to the public. There will undoubtedly be deep disappointment and concern—indeed anger—if their wishes are frustrated along with the will of Parliament, which was expressed so clearly on 24 January when the House voted by 5:1 in favour of giving the Bill a Second Reading.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The House had a different Bill before it on that occasion.

Mr. Churchill: There would be that reaction if their wishes were frustrated by only a handful of Members. I hope that that will not happen and that the spirit of friendly and constructive co-operation which prevailed in Committee will be continued.

Mr. Tim Brinton: Will my hon. Friend tell those people who will be angry if the Bill does not complete its passage through the House exactly what the Bill will do to help them if it is enacted?

Mr. Churchill: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) responded to that invitation, we would be getting away from the amendment. We must discuss the amendment that is before the House.

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member for Nantwich and Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) claims that the case for the Bill has thus far not been proved. The hon. Lady contends that the case has not been made that broadcasters have failed in self-regulation and suggests that thus far concern has been expressed only about two films—"Jubilee" and "Sebastiane". I hope to make it clear that that is not so and that concern is not restricted to those two films.
In addressing myself specifically to the amendment, I express strong agreement with the proposition advanced by the hon. Member for Nantwich and Crewe that nothing in clause 1 shall be construed as affecting the responsibility of the governors of the BBC or the members of the IBA. There is nothing in clause 1 that would do that. It should go without saying that the Broadcasting Act 1981 stands in its full vigour and that the Bill is merely a backup measure of last resort that is aimed at ensuring respect for the guidelines and reinforcing the authority of the statutory bodies in upholding them. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has said, the standards of the guidelines enjoin each authority that
nothing is included in the programmes which offends against good taste or decency".
Those standards are far higher than the minimum ones that the Bill aims to guarantee. The fact that the authorities have failed in their duty to uphold such standards should be obvious to all except the most myopic of television viewers.
The hon. Member for Nantwich and Crewe referred to the films "Jubilee" and "Sebastiane", and I shall quote briefly from the reply of the Director-General of the IBA, Mr. John Whitney, of 27 March when he said, apropos these two films,
we had very specifically in mind the statutory requirements of the Broadcasting Act … that nothing should be included in programmes which 'offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling'. It was our considered opinion that neither film would conflict with the Act, provided they were shown late at night and as part of a season of films chosen and introduced by David Robinson, the film critic of 'The Times' … Both were widely shown in public cinemas, and, as you are aware, were at no stage prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act.
That is extremely relevant because one of the elements in the test of obscenity is to have regard to the audience. I can well understand that neither of the two films in question would be prosecutable if shown to an audience of 18-year-olds plus. However, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a reply of great significance from Mr. Alasdair Milne, the Director-General of the BBC, of 8 April. He told me that for the month of February, the most recent month for which figures are available,
the typical number of 4–17 year olds watching television between 11 p.m. and midnight ranges between 0·8 million and 1·8 million depending on the day of the week.
He added that after midnight to closedown the viewership of those aged between 4 and 17 years is between 8 per

cent. and 13 per cent. What would be the fate of a cinema owner who regularly allowed 8 per cent. to 13 per cent. of his audience to be children from the age of 4 to 17 years? He would be prosecuted and his licence would be removed. I do believe—

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose—

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Lady has had her opportunity, but I will give way.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Those who seek to prosecute the cinema owner would have to demonstrate that those children were in the cinema. I would love to know where the BBC got the figures from.

Mr. Churchill: The figures come from the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board. Both the IBA and the BBC draw their figures from that organisation.
There are between 800,000 to 1·8 million children watching the many X-rated films which go out. Mr. Alasdair Milne made it clear that, in the course of last year, there were no fewer than 62 X-rated films broadcast on the BBC alone. That is a significant figure.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that at no point in the 24 hours will it be possible for anyone to show any material which is not acceptable to children?

Mr. Churchill: What I am questioning and what millions of parents of small children and teenage children question is whether a broadcasting authority has the right—

Mrs. Dunwoody: Parents have a right. There is a switch on the television—on-off.

Mr. Churchill: —in defiance of its statutory obligations to broadcast material which would be held to deprave and corrupt young people, when those films are available to adult-only cinemas.

Mr. Hayes: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I was horrified to learn that so many 14-year-olds are watching television at that time of night. Surely my hon. Friend must accept that it is most hypocritical for parents who have allowed their children to watch these sort of films to write and ask for legislation. The most worrying aspect is the lack of parental control.

Mr. Churchill: It may be fine to talk of parental control in the cosy Hampstead garden suburb in which the broadcasting apparatchik may reside with their nannies or au pairs to look after their children. However, in the type of area which I and many other hon. Members represent—industrial Britain—there are tens of thousands of families per constituency, single-parent families, families where the parents are shift workers, where no one is left at home to regulate the children's viewing. The figures produced by the BBC reveal that there are up to 1·8 million children who watch television up to midnight.
The idea that anything goes after 9 pm is a fraud and can no longer be used as justification by the broadcasting authorities. This week has been the horrifying case of a four-year-old girl who was raped by two 11-year-old boys.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Do not start on that.

Mr. Churchill: Where do 11–year-olds get the idea of committing such a crime if it is not from either pornographic magazines or from a diet of sex and violence thrust on them in their homes by television?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Demonstrate the evidence.

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Lady asks for evidence. I mention a letter I received from someone in Leicestershirewho writes:
At about 10.45 am on 20 February I tuned in to Central TV, to watch the School's programme."—
I stress school's programme—
The programme was one of a series called 'Starting Out'. Two youngsters take Y.T.S. jobs at an hotel, the lad in the kitchens and the girl as a chambermaid … The girl gets plied with drink by the manager and before long we are shown her in bed in the hotel and the manager has come naked and completely uninvited into her bed and we are shown him raping her. The scene is quite explicit.
That is a school programme which goes out at 10.45 am on Saturday morning.
Another parent from Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan, wrote to the editor of the TV Times and said:
During the children's school holiday,. I turned on the TV at 10.45 am to see if there was anything suitable for my small children and heard: 'I expect he just wants to get into your knickers.
Another letter on the same televison programme states:
We are not embarrassed: we are horrified that any school children are so exploited and subjected to such verbal muck.
That is what the broadcasters are allowed to put out on schools programmes. The broadcasters smugly ask for the link to be proved between violence and sex on television and what is happening in the country.
Broadcasters proclaim that this medium is the most powerful medium in the world for communication and for putting over ideas. If a television company is a commercial one it will try to sell a few minutes viewing time for thousands of pounds due to the viewing power of the medium.
A letter published in the Lancet on 22 March offers a link between a programme and the results of that programme. The letter was written by two doctors of the department of medicine at Hackney hospital and it states:
On Sunday, March 2, the Omnibus edition of the BBC Television's soap opera Eastenders showed the character Angie taking an overdose. In the following week we experienced a 300 per cent. increase in the number of patients attending the accident-and-emergency department at the Hackney Hospital in East London for deliberate overdose … In the week after the Eastenders programme 22 patients attended the accident-andemergency department having taken an overdose. During the previous 10 weeks the average had been 6·9. During the previous 10 to years the average … was 6·7.
Sue Bishop of Birmingham's Sunday Mercury said:
Shocking new evidence of the 'copycat' link between television violence and real life tragedies has been revealed by doctors in the Midlands. They say that during the week after the overdose drama in 'Eastenders' attempted suicide cases at their hospital almost DOUBLED. In one week more than 40 people were admitted after taking an overdose of drugs like Angie Watts in the BBC soap opera … And their message to viewers 'For heaven's sake don't copy what you see on television. Angie may have survived—but you could die'.
I think the link is incontrovertible.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I understand what the hon. Gentleman has said and it is regrettable if there was such a sequence of events. Is he suggesting that if the Bill were to become law, sequences as that drug-taking sequence in "Eastenders" would no longer be possible? I suggest that the Bill would do nothing about it.

Mr. Churchill: I was answering the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich who suggested that the broadcasting authorities are living up to their responsibilities. I do not believe that they are and I think

this is clear evidence that they are not. That sequence was directly contrary to the BBC's guidelines for its programme producers.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend has demonstrated the link between what is happening on television and people's behaviour. On exactly the same principle, violence is copied.

Mr. Churchill: There is no question about that. When I asked my local chief superintendent whether there was evidence of the public perpetrating copy cat crimes, he said, "You should see some of my constables. They think that they are Starsky and Hutch, whereas a few years ago—

Mr. Dubs: It would have been Dixon of Dock Green.

Mr. Churchill: Indeed, it would have been Dixon of Dock Green.
10.30 am
The governing bodies should take their responsibilities more seriously and get a firmer grip on what is broadcast before further damage is done. Amendment No. 1 is defective in two respects. First, the cable authority is outside the Bill's scope. Cable programmes are subject to a separate offence of obscenity, to be found in section 25 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984. In any event, that section bites on the providers of cable services, not on the Cable Authority which, unlike the broadcasting authorities, is not responsible for the content of programmes distributed by cable systems.
Secondly, the amendment omits to mention members of the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority, who are responsible for all programmes shown on that channel. In any case, the amendment is unnecessary. The duties and responsibilities of broadcasters are clearly laid down in the royal charter of the BBC and in the licensing and agreement with the Government. They are also set out with respect to the IBA and the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority in the Broadcasting Act 1981. Nothing ir the Bill bears on their existing responsibilities. The existing requirement, which is to put out nothing which offends against good taste, will continue to be the test and nothing in the Bill implies otherwise. I must therefore ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was diverted from her case a little by interventions from Conservative Members, notably the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), on violence being shown on television. There is a good deal to be said on that subject. I had hoped that this would have been a decent Bill setting out standards, but I regret to say that it is not. If we have a decent Bill, we may do something about the violence on television.
I sat through the Second Reading and the whole of the Committee stage. There has been no sign from the Bill's sponsors that they see a reduction of the showing of violence on our screens as any part of their purpose. It has been sex, sex, sex, and nothing but sex.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that,, since 1982, the courts have included violence in the definition of obscenity so that, when applying the Bill to television, we are applying standards of obscenity which include violence? If he accepts that, does he accept that the Bill is necessary?

Mr. Mikardo: I do not accept that because the definition of obscenity is so blurred—we had this over and again in Committee—that nobody can say what it includes and what it does not. I can only go on the speeches that were made in Committee and on Second Reading. They were all about sex. Conservative Members kept on about "Sebastiane" and "Jubilee". I did not hear anything in Committee, although it has just been mentioned lightheartedly, about "Starsky and Hutch", "The Professionals" or any other programme that shows violence. It was clear throughout the Committee stage that the sponsors are obsessed about sex and that that is what the Bill is all about.

Mr. Churchill: I must remind the hon. Gentleman of what I and others said about "Jubilee" on Second Reading and in Committee. Although there was offensive language and an offensive portrayal of sex, the burden of the complaint from both sides of the House was its vicious cruelty and violence.

Mr. Mikardo: If I were looking for examples of violence, I would not have thought that "Jubilee" was a number one runner. It was so interestng to the hon. Member and others only because it links violence and sex.
Much emphasis has been put on copycat behaviour. Any senior police officer will confirm that newscasts most induce copycat behaviour. Do those who support the Bill propose that a horrendous rape should not be reported? According to the police, the greatest copycat influence comes from news reporting. A lot more people, especially young people, see "News at Ten" or the BBC's 6 pm news than ever saw "Sebastiane" or "Jubilee". Hon. Members must be careful when carrying their argument through to what, on the face of it, appears a logical conclusion, but which is nonsense.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich because her amendment deals with one of the things that has become apparent during debates on the Bill—the principal motivation of the Bill's sponsors is a crude and massive prejudice against the BBC and the IBA. The hem of their skirt shows all of the time. To judge from behaviour on one occasion, to which I shall refer on a later amendment, there are some Conservative Members who prefer the standards of The Sun to those of the BBC and the IBA. That is not much of a tribute to their standards or their sense of morality.
As it has come up again today, and doubtless will do so again, I want to try to dispose once and for all all of Conservative Members' obsession with "Sebastiane" and "Jubilee". I did not see "Jubilee", but I saw "Sebastiane". It had no tendency to deprave and corrupt.

Mrs. Dunwoody: It sent me to sleep.

Mr. Mikardo: It had a very strong tendency to bore me out of my mind. I object powerfully on two grounds to "Sebastiane" being shown. The first is that it was so boring and slow. Everything took such a long time. It took ages for anything to happen. I have always thought that those who engage in depravity are pretty sharp, alert and quick about it, but everything that happened in "Sebastiane" took ages and was very boring.
Secondly, I objected to the fact that the characters spoke their Latin with an accent different from that which the Romans used.

Mr. Mellor: Was the hon. Gentleman there?

Mr. Mikardo: That is a fair question, as a giggle across the Floor of the House. I am nearly as old as that, but not quite. We now know, by research, how the Romans pronounced their Latin. They did not pronounce it in the Italianate way that was used by the characters in "Sebastiane". I believe, therefore, that the BBC ought not to have shown it. I agree with Mr. Winner, with whom I crossed swords on one occasion on "Any Questions", about that.
The two groups of television authorities produce between them in excess of 30,000 hours of programmes a year. If we accept that those two films were an error of judgment, they represent a one hundredth part of 1 per cent. of the annual output of the BBC and the IBA contractors. All mortals are fallible. I wonder how many hon. Members could put their hands on their hearts and swear that during their activities both inside this House and outside it the clangers they have dropped amount only to a one hundredth part of 1 per cent. of those activities. If shackles are to be placed on the broadcasting authorities because we consider that they are unfit to do their jobs, perhaps we ought to consider whether we are fit to be Members of Parliament, because the clangers that we drop during our activities amount to more than a one hundredth part of 1 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said that one will get what she, with here customary charitableness, called eccentrics taking up prosecutions. I say to the Minister, because he intervened on this point, that I am not altogether consoled by the fact that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required. In recent years there has been a good deal of evidence that the Director of Public Prosecutions is highly selective about the speed with which he tackles different kinds of breaches of the law.

Mrs. Dunwoody: There was a great scandal about the sale of blood by the National Health Service to private sources, and I put down questions over a period of 17 months before any action was taken. When I asked why it had taken so long, I was told that the investigations had been complicated. However, other investigations are completed with astonishing speed.

Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend quotes a particularly graphic example. One would have to carry out only a few hours of research to find another dozen examples like it. Therefore I am not altogether consoled by what the Minister said on that point.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, this is not the Bill that was discussed on Second Reading. This is the fourth Bill. There was the original Bill upon which we voted. Then the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) produced a mark 2 version, which he then abandoned for his mark 3 version. After that he abandoned his mark 3 version for this Bill. As this Bill is different from that which we discussed on Seond Reading, we do not know for certain that the Bill as it now stands would have received a Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman quoted with pride his big majority at Second Reading. However, he does not know whether he would have obtained that kind of majority for this Bill. The hon. Gentleman's Bill contained matters that were so hair raising that it resulted in certain hon. Members salivating


with recollection and in many votes being cast for his Bill that he would not have gained had it been this rather cold fish of a Bill.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the amendments that have been moved and accepted and that now form part of this Bill might in some respects have been regarded as beyond the scope of the original Bill?

Mrs. Dunwoody: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the hon. Member.

Mr. Mikardo: As you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is not a point of order. It is not relevant to the points that I was making. If the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) gained some satisfaction out of making his intervention, I wish him joy of it, but I do not have to take any notice of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich is right to seek to ensure that we do not place further unreasonable shackles upon the broadcasting authorities. They go to great lengths to try to meet public opinion. Of course they will make mistakes once in a while, but nobody can charge them with showing indifference to the problems that we are discussing, and it would be wrong to seek to shackle them further.

Mr. Mellor: As the House knows from other interventions that I have made at other stages of the Bill, the Government are neutral on the proposition as to whether broadcasters should be made subject to the Obscene Publications Act 1959 or whether the exemption that they have always enjoyed should be continued. That remains the Government's view.
However, I make what I hope are a few helpful points about the amendment. It is apparent from the discussions so far that, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), all those who have spoken or intervened have been at pains to point out that the guidelines that apply to both the IBA and the BBC are, in their terms, far tighter than anything that is prescribed in the 1959 Act. Most of them have either explicitly or impliedly indicated some dissatisfaction with the manner in which the guidelines are enforced by the broadcasting authorities. That is a matter for them. It is not a matter for me. However, I hope that the broadcasters will take seriously hon. Members' comments and some of the examples that they have given. There will be an opportunity for them to do so during the reconsideration of the BBC's guidelines that is being undertaken by a committee that is chaired by Mr. Wyatt.
Always at the heart of the issue has been the question whether the imposition of a long stop—nobody can assert that the 1959 Act would be any better than a long stop—would have the effect of toning up the system or, as some have contended, whether it would have the effect of placing even less emphasis upon the significance of the guidelines than is already the case. That is not a matter that I want to go into in detail, because it has been covered in the general issues. However, if the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is concerned that the requirements under the BBC charter or the requirements that weigh on the IBA under the Broadcasting Act would be ousted by the Bill if it were to become law, I hasten to reassure her, as I tried to do in my

intervention, that that would not be so. I hope that nothing that anyone has said is intended to do other than reinforce the duties of the broadcasters, which they clearly owe to Parliament, to observe the arrangements made under the charter and the Broadcasting Act.
If that were the case I could well understand that the hon. Lady might say, "Well why not make the declaratory statement?" That is effectively what her amendment suggests. I would have no objection to that although it is not in the end entirely a matter for me. The trouble is that the amendment is defective—I make no complaint of that—in two material particulars. First, it makes no reference to the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority, although that is an oversight that I can well understand because one does not necessarily think of that authority as much as the BBC. I see the hon. Lady hiding her face in shame, but she need not do so because there are no Welsh Nationalists here today.

Mrs. Dunwoody: We are all Welsh Nationalists.

Mr. Mellor: One stood in Putney at the previous general election but he did not do very well.

Mr. Dubs: Next time.

Mr. Mellor: We shall have to wait and see.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: He had an interesting sense of geography.

Mr. Mellor: Secondly, there is a reference in the amendment to the Cable Authority but cable is separately regulated under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 and is outwith the scope of the broadcasting arrangements dealt with here.
I hope that, whatever else we may disagree about, the hon. Lady will accept two propositions. First, that the rules by which she sets so much store, as do I, will remain. They are not ousted by the Bill. Secondly, it is not unfortunately possible to accept the amendment as saying that they will remain. It would simply mean that there would need to be consequential amendments in the House of Lords which would be of no advantage.

Mr. Dubs: The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) referred to an extract from "East Enders" and talked about copycat tendencies and the influence of television on behaviour. We all accept that television is the most powerful medium that there is. Those of us who are old enough to have seen the transition in Britain from a non-television society to a television society have a better idea of the increasing impact of television on all aspects of life.
Given that television is such a powerful influence, what part should be played either by the House or the BBC and IBA in saying that as there is a tendency to copy what is seen on television certain things should not be shown? The difficulty with that argument is that there is almost no end to it. Almost anything that can be seen on television might conceivably have a damaging influence on some viewers. Therefore, deciding where to draw the line is a difficult task which has defeated many people. Indeed, one of the reasons why there has been some criticism of the IBA and the BBC is because they may not have made the right decision.
Much as I regret the possibility that a drug-taking scene in "East Enders" led to a number of impressionable young people doing likewise, I find it difficult to say that therefore "East Enders" should not have shown that scene.


I do not have the hon. Gentleman's advantage of having watched that incident, so I am basing what I say on his description of it. But I find it hard to say that a programme such as "East Enders" should not be allowed to depict incidents which happen, alas, all too frequently, judging from the newspapers.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that in a programme I watched the other day a representative from MIND strongly condemned that particular incident because of the very facts that my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has mentioned. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support MIND in that particular instance.

Mr. Dubs: I respect MIND as an organisation, but without having seen the film it is hard to make a specific judgment or to contradict judgments made by others. All I would say is that overdoses of drugs are deeply regrettable, but they do happen, as British newspapers show. I find it hard to say that no film which depicts life as it may be should exclude incidents which are part of life, even if they are regrettable.

Mr. Churchill: The perniciousness of what was shown rested in the fact that the television personality Angie downed an overdose of barbiturates with a bottle of gin and was saved. That is what gives rise to the grounds for concern. Many impressionable young people, having just finished an unhappy love affair, may think that they could do the same thing and also be saved. The fact that there was such a significant increase in the suicide and attempted suicide rate that week can only be a matter for grave concern. Indeed, it has been accepted by the broadcasting authorities that that should not have gone out and they did not include it in the repeat.

Mr. Dubs: All I can say to that the is that responsibility lies more with the broadcasting authorities than with anybody else. But I still question whether, if the Bill becomes law, there is anything in it that would put a stop to such an incident.
That brings me to the heart of what I want to say. I deal with what the Minister said earlier. The objectives and aims which we share—that there are things from which impressionable young people should be protected—can best be achieved by the operation of the BBC and IBA guidelines rather than by legislation which, particularly in the context of the example that the hon. Gentleman has quoted, would not achieve that end.

Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend is right to say that if that criterion is applied, there is nowhere that it can end. For example, teetotal bodies might object to the fact that in the two series which have huge audiences—"Coronation Street" and "East Enders"—a lot of the action takes place in a pub. Does that mean that people should not be shown drinking in pubs for fear of copycat? What about smoking and the rest of it? What does it stop?

Mr. Dubs: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the real difficulty of where one stops if the example of television is such a powerful one.
I rest my case in the main on the fact that if we in the House are not happy about the way in which the guidelines operate, it is up to us to ask the BBC and the IBA what is the matter with their guidelines, either in the way that

they are being applied or in what is contained within them. That sort of dialogue with the broadcasting authorities would do more to protect children and young people than anything in the Bill.
I do not share the belief that in drawing a parallel between television and cinema we can say that there are some films to which people under 18 are not admitted in the cinema and so that makes it all right. In fact, a young person—not a 10-year-old—in his or her mid-teens seems to find no difficulty in getting into a cinema, in London at any rate, even if there is an official bar on under 18–year-olds. But that is by the way.
I know from my discussions with the BBC and the IBA that they are genuinely concened about the public's perception of what they show and they are genuinely concerned about the views of hon. Members. I am convinced that if the House were to tell the authorities that we want to see changes in the guidelines or in the way in which the guidelines are implemented, there would at least be a willingness to discuss and enter into dialogue. That is a more useful path along which to go.
There is a matter of concern which is covered directly by the amendment. I feel that, despite the Minister's assurance—human nature being what it is—if there is legislation as a backstop the enthusiasm with which the BBC and IBA will apply their guidelines may be diminished to some extent. They will say that they do not need to worry too much about whether a film ought to be shown because there is the backstop of the new legislation. Because that might be the way in which it would operate, I am doubly concerned about the effect of this legislation. The effect might not simply be a blunt instrument. It might weaken the very protection which we are seeking to achieve.
11 am
There is another point to which hon. Members have referred and which I wish to discuss. I find the idea that, because some young people aged between 14 and 17 watch television until as late as midnight, all television ought to be based on that assumption, difficult to reconcile with the needs, ambitions and desires of an adult, mature society. I find it hard to accept what the hon. Member for Davyhulme said earlier, that television, under no circumstances, should show anything which would be unsuitable for a 15 or 16-year-old. The consequences for television as a medium of news, information and entertainment could be extremely damaging.
I did not believe that the hon. Gentleman intended his Bill to go that far, but what he said earlier suggests that he does. We have to strive for a balance. On the whole, I think that the broadcasters have the balance right. The balance is that early in the evening many children watch and programming ought to take note of that. However, later in the evening things change. I shall quote from the "IBA Family Viewing Policy":
But it is assumed that from 9.00 pm onwards parents may reasonably be expected to share responsibility for what their children are permitted to see.
It goes on to talk about what happens after 9.30 pm and 10.30 and so on. It says:
Violence is not the only reason why a programme may be unsuitable for family viewing. Other factors include bad language, innunedo, blasphemy, explicit sexual behaviour, and scenes of extreme distress.
Those factors go much wider than the Bill and I think that they are absolutely right.

Mr. Cash: Has the hon. Gentleman had the advantage of seeing the news released from IBA of 10 April? It says:
If it wished, Parliament could extend the Broadcasting Act to include the references to depravity and corruption contained in the 1959 Obscene Publication Act—together with the defence available.
Elsewhere it says:
If broadcasting were to be included in the proposed Bill the Members of the Authority would be exposed to possible criminal prosecution.
Effectively, it is saying that it does not mind tests of depravity and corruption being included but it does not want to be exposed to criminal prosecution. It is quite clear that a line has to be drawn and that is what we are trying to do in the Bill.

Mr. Dubs: Of course a line has to be drawn. I am saying that we get better protection by the line that can be drawn under the guidelines than the line that can be drawn by the legislation. The quotation that I have read from the "Family Viewing Policy" represents some of the most sensible words that I have heard on the subject.
Of course, the guidelines do work. We know that the IBA has deliberately not shown certain films. In a letter to me the IBA mentions some of the films it declined to transmit. It says:
the IBA has declined to transmit a number of feature films including, for example. 'Straw Dogs', 'Last Tango in Paris' and 'The Exorcist'.
From my conversations with the IBA it is clear that it is well aware of the difficulties and it is aware that certain films should not be shown. A statement by the IBA says:
Even if, as some believe, it was a mistake to show one or two particular films—irrespective of the context or timing—the transmission of particular programmes will always be a matter of judgment, and at the margins there will be disagreement. Public—and political—reactions to films such as 'Jubilee' and `Sebastiane', or to other programmes at the margins of taste, are of course taken into account in the judgment of other programmes offered for transmission in the future.
That seems to be an indication of the sensitivity of the authority to pressure and public opinion.

Mr. Churchill: Would the hon. Gentleman consider that much of that is window dressing? The reason for what I say is a report in The Stage and Television Today of 27 March which says:
Showings of Last Tango in Paris and, it is claimed Mad Max have been postponed indefinitely.
A Channel Four spokesman admitted there was a feeling that Last Tango with its notorious butter scene should not be shown in the current climate without substantial cuts which would mean it was not worth showing at all.
It is clear that if the Bill fails that film will appear on television.

Mr. Dubs: That is most unlikely. If the Bill fails I think that we will all still have a responsibility to keep pressure on the IBA and the BBC. I think that the hon. Gentleman may well have achieved something by drawing more attention to the guidelines and making the broadcasters more sensitive and aware of parliamentary and, above all, public opinion. It is public opinion and public attitudes which we have to take into account.
I do not want to go down the path of saying that because a child may be watching a television programme—by that I mean somebody of 17—possibly as late as midnight, then every film that is shown on television should be based on the assumption that a handful of children may be watching late at night and we cannot have programmes which are suitable for adult viewing.
As I have said, drawing the line is difficult. Based on the excerpts that I saw from "Jubilee" I would have

preferred it not to have been shown on television. Equally. I believe that there was nothing in "Sebastiane" to which anybody should take exception and which would make it unsuitable for child viewing. That view is based upon the excerpts that the hon. Member for Davyhulme arranged during the Committee stage. Those are subjective judgments based, as the IBA says, at the margins.
I think that the sensitivity of the broadcasters and their ability to take note of feeling and public taste is greater than the blunt instrument of a court of law. Indeed, if one of those films were to be taken to the court under the arrangement in the Bill and the prosecution were to fail, I suspect that the effects would be very damaging because it would open up the floodgates. By having the guidelines we can keep constant pressure on the authority.
There is one other point of detail which bothers me. I understand why an amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends was not selected. However, I think that it is appropriate to mention it in the context of the responsibility of the broadcasting authority. Scotland and Northern Ireland are excluded from the Bill. I understand the technical reasons for that. However, many of the programmes we see on television are networked to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Indeed, I think with the exception of the main ITV channel the norm is that all programmes are networked. Even on the main ITV channel I believe that many programmes are networked throughout the United Kingdom.
I find it difficult to see how the broadcasting authorities can act on one set of legislations for England and Wales and a different set of legislations for Scotland and Northern Ireland. That seems illogical and a bit of a nonsense. That is another reason why the normal responsibilities of the BBC and the IBA have to be the main safeguard rather than this measure.
I agree with the aims of the hon. Member for Davyhulme. We all agree that children should be protected. However, it is not worthwhile to say "we must protect our children and, even if the method is defective, never mind we will have made our gesture." The needs of our children and our responsibilities to them are too important for futile gestures.

Mr. Tim Brinton: I shall not refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) too much because that might incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but is is absurd that the Bill will apply only to England and not to Scotland. If any of the IBA or BBC people wanted to transmit a programme they could easily take it up to Scotland and transmit it without being caught by the Bill.
I welcome the amendment because it illustrates vividly the main problem in the Bill. As the Minister said, the obligations or responsibilities of the governors and duties of the members of the IBA cannot be preserved in exactly the same way if the Bill becomes law. The Director of Public Prosecutions would become the editor-in-chief of broadcasting.
The argument was put lucidly in a letter to The Times today by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. He is particularly nervous about the Bill's effects, although a good friend of my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). He said:
I have over the years been actively engaged in considering the efficacy of legal censorship, particularly in relation to


literature and films. I have arrived at the firm conclusion that these are not matters that can be effectively dealt with in the dock at the Old Bailey.
As the hon. Member for Battersea said, we are talking about individual taste. Over the years—nearly 60 years—we have set up a system of regulated broadcasting which by and large, with a few mistakes here and there, has stood the test of time and should not be pushed aside lightly. The Bill will substantially transfer the end responsibility for broadcasting to someone versed in the law from the members of the IBA and governors of the BBC who, through contacts with the boards of management and others in the programme companies, have built up an expertise in programme making, in audience reaction and in assessing public opinion at any given time.
If the problem were as simple as making sweets it would be easy because the law would be clear. This Bill, as it has emerged, is, as the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said, not the Bill that we discussed on Second Reading when I attempted to be called. I read the Committee proceedings carefully and the rapid changes made have changed the emphasis. That is not unreasonable. I was more against the original Bill than this Bill. The laundry list is now accepted as an absurdity.
The Bill makes it clear in its preamble that the presumption is that under 18-year-olds in their masses will be watching television at any time of the day or night and that the ultimate decision for prosecution is to be left to one man—the DPP—in spite of all the duties and obligations of the members of the IBA and the governors of the BBC.
If that were so, hon. Members who support the Bill would be gravely disappointed because the emphasis of all their speeches on Second Reading, in Committee, and now today, is that they want to stop the drip, drip, drip of constant violence. They want to stop those things which are affecting children. The Bill does not go near that. This is a Bill to deal with obscenity.
11.15 am
My personal and subjective judgment is that the extracts that I saw from "Jubilee" make me think that it should not be shown on television. I am more doubtful about "Sebastian". There must be a subjective judgment at the margin. That attitude gives the Bill a fair wind. I am trying to interpret my hon. Friend's intentions as kindly as I can, but I see more sinister connotations in the Bill, especially when I look back to the proceedings- on the Video Recordings Act introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright).
We should be worried about the slow drip, drip, drip of censorship. The optimism of some of my hon. Friends that we are going to do something about the Starskies and Hutches and "The A Team" worry me intensely. That should be left to the BBC governors and to the IBA members. If we do not like their decisions they should be told in forceful terms. The Home Secretary has the power to sack the members of those organisations. If their decisions are so unsatisfactory he should take that action.
I am not here to support obscenity, pornography or violence in any form. I hope that none of us are here for that. We all have different subjective judgments about what we mean by those words. That is the problem.
Therefore, great and good bodies must, if we are to keep regulated broadcasting organised, look at the problems for us objectively.
My hon Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) asked the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) what she would do. I believe that many things can be done. The responsibilities and duties of the members of the IBA and BBC could be considerably enhanced as a result of my hon. Friend's Bill because it brings the problem to their attention.
The principle of screening more adult programmes as the evening goes on is vital if we are to protect quality and standards in British broadcasting. Is there not a case for suggesting to the BBC and IBA that there might be a more efficient way of warning parents that the more adult programming is coming up? I should not be averse to a form of certification at the beginning of a programme. If we want to become really puritanical we could take as an example the clock at the corner of the screen during breakfast television. Instead of a clock why not put a programme designation there? That would not disturb the drama too much.

Mr. Stuart Randall: Unless such information is provided it is impossible for parents to operate any form of self-censorship.

Mr. Brinton: Since I am a supporter of a Government interested in giving independence and freedom of choice to the individual, I believe that that is where the responsibility lies, with the help of the bodies that I have mentioned. If parents are given an idea of a programme's content by a simple symbol and by a symbol in the newspaper programme schedules they could say, "Johnny, you watch that and you're in trouble." If that is not enough we can go further. Some form of electronic lock could be installed easily and cheaply so that if parents are not in they can lock up their television—as opposed to their daughters.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Such locks exist and are used by people who pay to watch a particular channel.

Mr. Brinton: Such locking devices could be easily and cheaply installed.
There are many ways to tackle the problem which the majority of my hon. Friends want to cure. They are shocked by obscenity, but I seriously challenge them to name one programme—and I include the two films of which my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme is so fond—the case against which would succeed if brought before a jury.
My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme mentioned the letters that he had received about a schools programme. He made a marvellous case for my view that the responsibility for education on television and radio should rest with the Department of Education and Science and not with the BBC and the IBA. I do not know what audience was being aimed at in the Saturday morning programme that he was so shocked to hear about. Perhaps it was a sociology programme. I certainly do not approve of the contents of that programme, but there are other forms of protection that do not involve putting responsibility on the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The amendment may be flawed, but it is an insurance policy. If the Bill becomes law the amendment will at least remind everyone who interprets what we say that there


were institutions known as the BBC and the IBA and that they did not do too badly although occasionally they made horrid howlers.

Mr. Randall: I sense from the speeches made so far that every hon. Member in the Chamber accepts that there are problems about television broadcasting and films that are being made available to young children under the existing arrangements.
The IBA has a 9 o'clock rule. It deems itself to be responsible for films and programmes shown before 9 pm. I am sure that all hon. Members received the 10 April letter from the IBA which describes its policy as being
as far as possible not to broadcast material unsuitable for children at times when large numbers of children are viewing.
The letter says that there are constraints on that policy, one of which is that there is no time of the evening when there are not some children, perhaps even quite substantial numbers, watching television.
I have been in correspondence with the chairman of the IBA, Lord Thomson. I received a letter from him yesterday in which he said:
Family Viewing Policy, as you know, assumes a gradual progression after 9.00 p.m. towards programmes likely to be unsuitabl for young children.
That is clear. The IBA says that it has control before 9 o'clock and that thereafter parents have the responsibility. Hon. Members who, like me, have young teenage children, know that 9 pm cannot be regarded as a sensible time for the IBA to decide to relinquish its responsibility. That is an absurd decision and not related to reality.
I accept that the existing policy is complicated and that there is no universal solution to the problem. The hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) said that she wants to see some action, but there is not one solution to the problem. A number of elements will have to be taken into account, some of which will offer greater scope for improvement than others.
A major problem is the difficulty of reconciling the interests of young children and of adults. It would be illiberal to prevent parents from seeing the films that they like to watch. I should like to tighten standards, but it would be morally wrong for me to say that I am able to make decisions for other people. They have to make decisions for themselves.
The key responsibilities for introducing improvements rest with parents and the broadcasting authorities, particularly the IBA. Some may say that I am unfair, but my intuitive judgment is that the IBA churns out much more of the unacceptable stuff. The BBC's standards are generally higher, though I accept the drip, drip, drip argument.

Mr. Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong statement when he claims that the IBA is not maintaining standards. Can he give us a few examples? Can he give us a list of programmes, with transmission dates and times?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Evidence? We do not worry about evidence on this Bill.

Mr. Randall: I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Randall: In a moment. I shall be giving a specific example later.

Mr. Hayes: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about standards, particularly in the IBA and on Channel 4, but does he accept that, whether the Bill is passed or not, it has performed a tremendous service, because it has brought matters to public attention? As a result of our debates, I do not believe that the IBA would dare show films such as "Sebastiane" and "Jubilee" ever again.

Mr. Randall: The Bill is a sledgehammer and is impractical, but I concede that it has brought out the arguments, and that is healthy.
As for the proposed changes in the Bill, I am sceptical—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the amendment. Hon. Members are tending to debate the whole Bill again.

Mr. Randall: The IBA is muddled about what its existing policy and the Bill can achieve. In his letter to me, the chairman of the IBA said that he felt that the Bill would bite only at the extremes of pornography and unacceptable films. He said:
Although the precise parameters of what may be obscene may be altered, the Bill will at the end of the day only bite upon the extremes. It will not bear upon the kind of quite legitimate mainstream programming for grown-up people with which our discussions have been concerned.
Those are the discussions that I have had with the chairman.
It will most certainly not provide the 'form of protection' you quite properly advocate. That is part of the function of the IBA and I am determined that we will despatch it effectively.
The press release of 10 April, which all hon. Members have received states that, with the introduction of the Bill,
all programmes would have to be suitable for children since the Bill makes no distinction between viewing at different limes of the day".
In addressing its responsibilities, the IBA seems to be rather muddled about the effects of the Bill.

Mr. Brinton: Far from being muddled, is not the IBA trying to echo rather more clearly the argument that I was trying to present, that the Bill will cause the IBA and BBC either to release their responsibilities and leave it to the ultimate—the Director of Public Prosecutions—which we would all consider to be very bad news, or to go for 18 and under-18 programming for the 24 hours? There are two alternatives. That is one of the difficulties with the Bill.

Mr. Randall: That is absolutely right. I will not go far down this path, in case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you rule me out of order again. However, I would like the companies and the parents to deal with the problem rather than the courts, and I sense that many people share that view.
As for responsibility, I submitted some proposals to the chairman of the IBA just over a year ago after seeing on television a film called "The Squeeze". I frankly found that film offensive. I am reluctant to sound priggish, but I was not prepared to have such stuff shown in my house. I went to Lord Thomson's office and we discussed the matter. He told me that the IBA had reviewed the film again and found that it fell below standard. He gave me an assurance that it would not be shown in Britain again. The IBA had made a mistake.
Lord Thomson told me that very few people write to complain. When we consider the role of the IBA in these


matters, hon. Members should make sure that they complain to the authorities, and should encourage the public to do so too.
Essentially we need to provide parents with the means of imposing their own controls and influence on young people. I remember the occasion when I saw "The Squeeze". I had had a very busy day. When I reached home I sat down with a drink to watch a film. According to the newspaper, Edward Fox was to appear in the film, and he is an actor whom I admire. I sat down to watch it. Unknown to me, pornography—that is all it was—was about to be shown.
I had no information on which to decide whether or not that film would be acceptable. I subsequently looked at various newspapers to see whether there were any critiques of the film or any information about it. There was no information at all.
I made the same point to Alasdair Milne, the Director-General of the BBC, and to Bill Cotton, who runs the television side of the business, as I made to Lord Thomson. I said that if they could provide such information, that would be a big step forward.
This is not just a whimsical idea. I propose that we adopt a scheme such as has already been implemented by at least one of the cable television companies. I have met Mr. Burchall, the chief executive of Premiere Television. He told me that his company has taken the responsibility into its own hands by providing viewers with information so that they can decide for themselves.
We do not want mere gestures. We are addressing a specific amendment, and we are doing so because we want some action to ensue. Should we enable parents to decide on such matters themselves, or do we prevent them from doing so? In my view, we should provide parents with appropriate information. We could use little codes in the newspapers. A film containing bad language would be given an exclamation mark. For a horror film there would be a little axe dripping blood; for a family film, a profile of a family. Such a scheme is in operation, and Mr. Burchall told me that a very high proportion of viewers find it acceptable. The codes could also appear on trailers. We would go some way towards overcoming the problem that we face if we gave people the choice and the information on which to decide for themselves and their families.

Mr. Churchill: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 76, Noes 18.

Division No. 157]
[11.36 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cash, William


Amess, David
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Churchill, W. S.


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)


Beith, A. J.
Cope, John


Bendall, Vivian
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Dicks, Terry


Benyon, William
Dover, Den


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Durant, Tony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fallon, Michael


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Favell, Anthony


Bright, Graham
Freeman, Roger


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garel-Jones, Tristan





Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Nicholls, Patrick


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Normanton, Tom


Gow, Ian
Pawsey, James


Greenway, Harry
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hordern, Sir Peter
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Howard, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Sims, Roger


Jackson, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Key, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Lilley, Peter
Sumberg, David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Maclean, David John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


McNamara, Kevin
Thornton, Malcolm


Marlow, Antony
Viggers, Peter


Mates, Michael
Wheeler, John


Mather, Carol
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Mawhinney, Dr Brian



Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tellers for the Ayes


Mellor, David
Sir Nicholas Bonsor and


Newton, Tony
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.




NOES


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Pavitt, Laurie


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Prescott, John


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Randall, Stuart


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Sedgemore, Brian


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Hugh
Wareing, Robert


McKay, Allen (Penistone)



Madden, Max
Tellers for the Noes:


Mikardo, Ian
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Mr. Chris Smith.

Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 32 (Majority for Closure).

Question again proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: It is sad that this Bill will fail because of lack of parliamentary time. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has blazed a trail and one day in the near future we shall probably see an improved Bill. I should like to thank him for drawing the attention of the public to a pressing need.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who proposed the amendment, laid great emphasis on the fact that there was little evidence to justify this legislation. The hon. Lady alleged that she received more letters about Sunday trading than she received about the Bill. She sought to imply that that showed a lack of support from the general public for the Bill. I must record that I have received over 20,000 letters in support of child protection. That shows how deeply the general public feel about these matter.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I did not seek to show anything of the sort. I was trying to make it clear that Members of Parliament traditionally receive large numbers of letters about many pieces of legislation. The suggestion that, because the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has received a large number of letters, that represents a unique occasion, is misrepresenting the normal situation.

Mr. Dickens: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Armstrong): Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to stray a bit, but he must come back to the amendment.

Mr. Dickens: I shall return to the amendment and answer the points made by the proposer. The 1985–86 television season got off to a chilling start. One in three programmes shown after 6.30 pm on all four channels during the first week in September contained scenes of physical violence. "Jubilee" and "Sebastiane" have been well cited, but setting those aside, we saw, for example, a man having his throat cut with a kitchen knife and a close-up of the victim's throat. A man hit a woman with his fist and then battered her to the ground with a stick while the camera focused on her bloodied face. There was a sheriff with a pickaxe in his chest. Two men and a woman were portrayed beating a victim to the floor with wooden clubs, with blood seeping into the carpet. There was also a villian holding a pistol to his victim's head and then injecting him with a hypodermic needle thrust into his nose.
Today, young people watch about 23 hours of television each week. Experts believe that, by a child's late teens, he could have witnessed 16,000 violent deaths.
Let us consider the evidence. Since the ratings battle began, when commercial television arrived in 1955, violence has emerged as a crucial ingredient in television entertainment. During that same period, the number of reported crimes of violence against the person rose from 7,884 to 114,187 per year, and the number of rapes known to the police rose from 340 each year to 1,433.
Many studies have cited television as a significant factor in that increase. Back in 1969, President Johnson's National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence ansserted:
Violence on television encourages violent forms of behaviour".
More recently, in 1982, a major report by America's National Institute of Mental Health recognised:
Violence on television does lead to aggresive behaviour by children and teenagers who watch the programmes.
A research project in Newhaven, Connecticut, observed three and four-year-olds at eight day-care centres over a full year. It was found that the children who watched the highest number of violent television programmes clearly showed the most aggressive behaviour. Canadian researchers in Manitoba came to the same conclusion.
Some of the most detailed research has been conducted in the United Kingdom. From 1972 until 1978, Doctor William Belson of the North-East London polytechnic studied the behaviour of 1,563 London boys aged between 13 and 16. His conclusion was:
Television violence has a slow drip-drip effect on a young person, gradually eroding the training of parents and society against using violence".
Dr. Belson found that the heavy television viewing boys had committed 50 per cent. more, violent acts. For example, they had used knives or broken bottles, and had vandalised cars and public conveniences.
Since 1975, the average age for the onset of disruptive behaviour in primary schools has dropped to between three and five years. That was revealed after a study by Dr. Jean Lawrence and David Steed of London's Goldsmith college, which was published in the journal of the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association. Only last summer the study charted a four-year-old who had injured

his classmates, a five-year-old who had forced a friend's face onto a cloakroom peg and an eight-year-old who had been wrenched away from kicking and punching a teacher by two adults.
Television is a major contributor to violence. That is as clearly and scientifically established as the relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. The Bill's provisions provide protection against the rapidly escalating instances of violent, sadistic and sexual crimes, as shown on television. If the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich feels that the Bill is such an irrelevance, why are the IBA and the BBC so excited about what we wish to do? The reason is that there are producers who are not following the guidelines, and who are inflicting the most dreadful material on our young people. One day the House will pass the necessary legislation, and we will protect our children from such filth.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Bill has emerged significantly improved from its Committee stage. Indeed, it has been changed out of all recognition, and perhaps that is why it has been improved. I share the widespread public concern over some of the things covered by the Bill. Like the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), I believe that the real problem is violence. I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman concentrated on violence rather than on sexual matters, as the Bill seems to cover the latter. Perhaps it was because of his significant contribution a few weeks ago to The Sun. The article in The Sun said:
political heavyweight Geoffrey who represents Littleborough and Saddleworth is one of those red-blooded members confident of killing Labour kill-joy Clare Short … The jolly MP said `girls would give their right arm for a figure like Tracey's'. Another cracker tomorrow.
Perhaps that is why the hon. Gentleman concentrated on violence today.

Mr. Dickens: As the hon. Gentleman mentioned me by name, I am grateful to him for giving way. Contrary to the view put about by the Opposition, that article illustrates that I am not a prude or so obsessed with sexual matters that I have to support such a Bill. I am certainly not a prude. But the protection of children and shielding them from obscene and explicit material is a quite different matter.

Mr. Mitchell: I wholeheartedly accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance that he is not a prude. However, we at least agree that violence rather than sex is a problem. But that violence comes not so much from British programmes, although it is creeping into them, as from imported American programmes, which place an emphasis on violence. Indeed, Americans lead a much more violent way of life, which is reflected in their programmes. But the problem is that the Bill does not do anything about the violence that the hon. Gentleman and I complain about. That is why I want to amend the clause.
If the Bill makes protest noises about violence but does nothing about it, it is merely dealing in gesture politics. I do not see such politics as necessary. There is great intellectual confusion among the Bill's advocates. They create a climate of fear and alarm and then introduce this Bill as a solution to it. Yet it is irrelevant to most of those fears and alarms. Some years ago the report of the Williams committee said that to regard
pornography as having a crucial or even a significant effect on essential social values is to get the problem of pornography out of proportion with the many other problems that face our society today.
There is a climate of fear and alarm. Yet to concentrate, as the Bill does, solely on sexual matters is to ignore the problem of violence, and the other factors that create that kind of fear and alarm.
The teeth have been taken out of the Bill, but it has been left with enough gums to chomp and chew at the institution of broadcasting. That is why I support the amendment. It takes effective steps to protect broadcasting from the dangers inherent in the haphazard interventions that the Bill would generate.
Self-discipline on the part of broadcasting institutions and the audience is the solution to the problem, if there is one. That would be better than allowing unpredictable interventions, as the Bill does, and then allowing broadcasting to be subject to the criteria of its effects on 13 and 14-year-olds, who might be viewing at any time of the day. To reduce everything to the level of what is acceptable to them, particularly late at night, is to create a television of wall-to-wall Blue Peter rather than a television of entertainment, interest, involvement and information about the world as it is. We cannot subject tastes on such matters to that level of intervention and discrimination.
People who do not take the trouble to discipline their children and the viewing habits of children who should not be watching television very late at night or watching the programmes which cause complaints, are effectively asking the State to discipline their children for them through legislation. They are imposing the consequences of their indiscipline on the rest of society. That approach is out of proportion to the problem.
The problem concerns those children who are not controlled or subject to parental discipline, who are viewing programmes which they should not late at night. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). He said that nine o'clock in the evening was not an appropriate cut-off time for the IBA to hand the discipline of viewing back to parents. That cut-off point should come later.
12 noon
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West also made the point about the need for information. More information leads to informed choice and that is what society is about. We need to know what is in the programmes and what the consequence of those programmes will be. That information should be freely available.
The real problem is that such information will not reach the young people who are watching at times when they should not be watching and whose viewing taste is being made the dominant factor in the approach of the Bill. The information would not reach that crucial group of people.

Mr. Randall: Would my hon. Friend agree that the information must reach the parents? It is impossible for parents to impose any form of parental control without that information being fully available in a form that will describe precisely what the film may contain.

Mr. Mitchell: I hope that I was making that point. I agree that that information should be available to parents

and to young people. We should know what problems exist. The information would assist in making the viewing choice and help the assertion of parental discipline. The key problem is, however, parental discipline imposed on children. The rest of society should not be censored as a result of programmes being made acceptable and suitable for 13 or 14-year-olds. The universe is very different and adults' appreciation of it differs from that of children. The information should be available.
The essence of freedom is the freedom to make mistakes and choices. That is the freedom of a free society and the approach to that is through self-discipline and discipline by the broadcasting authorities rather than an imposed framework of state discipline subject to totally unpredictable interventions by the Director of Public Prosecutions acting at the behest of moral groups or through the pressures and panics of others.
I would like to stress that cable television offers the possibility of a universal choice of viewing with up to 40 channels. It offers a much wider choice of viewing. It should not therefore, be subject to the same controls and that is why the amendment does not deal with authority in that area. The essence of cable television is the freedom to choose what one wants to see. We must have the information, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West stressed. Choice is the essence of cable, and not the lowest common denominator programmes on the on-air channels at present.
Freedom means the freedom to experiment and to state one's view of the world as an artist and producer or as someone making a television programme. The broadcasting authorities must then decide at what time it is appropriate for that programme to be broadcast.
I would, frankly, prefer to leave the clause out of the Bill. The amendment expresses my only real objection to the Bill. I oppose the extension of the obscene publications legislation to the broadcasting institutions and I believe that the rest of the Bill, as drafted, deserves my support. However, I believe that the extension of the obscene publications legislation through this clause to the broadcasting institutions creates a dangerous situation in which the authorities will be subject to unpredictable interferences. The self-discipline that is so essential will be weakened because the authorities will become less responsible. I would have preferred the amendment to have been left out of the Bill. I am sure that if the amendment is dropped the Opposition would allow the Bill to pass without any other difficulties.
However, the amendment is before us and the Report stage of this House functions in such a way that we cannot deal with clause stand part, we can proceed only by amendment and that is what we are doing now. We are seeking to offset the dangers created by the extension of the obscene publications legislation to the broadcasting institutions.
Other amendments have not been selected. I would have like the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) to have been selected and I am sure that it would have been selected had she withdrawn her Bill on that matter. It is difficult to select an amendment that relates to another Bill before the House. I would have liked the House to have dealt with that problem as it would have exposed the hypocrisy whereby Tory Members of Parliament appear day after day


in The Sun newspaper to endorse its nudes and then pose as the advocates of the moral majority, censorship and discipline—as the new puritans against excess.
We have not been privileged to deal with that matter as amendment No. 25 was not selected. Mrs. Mary Whitehouse is a strong advocate of the Bill and I do not criticise her. Indeed, in my view, she has performed a valuable service. She is a populist and I have great affinities with populism. She has demonstrated to the House, to the country and to the broadcasting organisations the degree of public concern about these issues. We tend to live in an ivory tower in this House and we are sometimes out of touch with public opinion.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Before my hon. Friend becomes completely ecstatic about the virtues of Mrs. Mary Whitehouse, does he agree with her condemnation of radio and television broadcasts and films which she has not seen?

Mr. Mitchell: I cannot answer for Mrs. Mary Whitehouse. She has, however, reminded us about a level of concern which all too often we forgot in the House. We must use our judgment on what Mrs. Whitehouse said, on her arguments and the views expressed through her organisation. Those matters are still subject to our judgment. The danger is that in revealing the extent of that opinion she creates a panic reaction in which people are forced, through panic and public pressure, to make changes which are undesirable and which are put forward as solutions to the problems Mrs. Whitehouse articulates.

Mr. Harry Greenway: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: In other words, emption drives out rationality in these argument. It is right that concerns should be expressed.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) came a little nearer than he would have wanted to slurring Mrs. Whitehouse. This week, Mrs. Whitehouse sent to various hon. Members including myself, detailed researches into BBC television programmes detailing precisely, line by line, her objections against them. It is not really fair to pretend that she does not see what she is criticising.

Mr. Mitchell: I am not seeking to praise Mrs. Whitehouse with faint damns. Rather, I believe that she has performed a valuable service in articulating a sub-stratum of opinion, an element of opinion that exists, of which we should be aware. She has also performed valuable work in providing that information and I accept that implicitly. However, arising from such concerns and pre-occupations put forward by Mrs. Whitehouse and others, there is an obsession with matters sexual rather than what I believe is the larger side of the problem, violence.
Secondly, because of the pressure that is created by those opinions, we are prone to knee-jerk, gesture reactions that are designed to passify and to show that the House is doing something. These reactions are dangerous, because they do not deal with the problems that is the source of the complaints.
It is important that we as Members of Parliament exercise our rationality and our judgment. We must be aware of concerns and seek to deal with them realistically. We must not be stampeded into taking actions that are possibly more harmful than the disease. In dealing with

issues to which the Bill addresses itself the House can be stampeded into panic reactions. It can be caused to rush in to show that it is doing something in response to public concern. When that happens we express our concern but we do not solve the problem itself.
The real problem is violence. Those who accept violence on television justify their opinions by saying that violence is a part of life. Violence is not a part of my life, not even when I am involved in internal relationships within the Labour party. Violence is not a part of life of the great majority of our constituents. We are exposing people, especially young people, to a level of violence that they will not see in their own life. Violence might have been seen 40 or 50 years ago when life itself was far more violent but now it is not. Yet we are being exposed to a steady drip of violence, and I agree with the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth that people become innured to it. There is an accumulation—a sedimentation—of violence. Where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman is on the effect that the Bill will have. In my opinion the Bill will do nothing to reduce the amount of violence that is shown on television. That is the essence of the problem.
The IBA code recognises the reality of violence and how to deal with it. It addresses itself to the problems that arise when people are exposed to violence. I do not think that the code is satisfactory.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. I understand his reasons for opposing the Bill and I recognise that it has an enormous defect in that it does not deal with the problem of violence. What does the hon. Gentleman think that the authorities should do that they are not already doing?

Mr. Mitchell: I shall attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman's question in a moment. I have found a copy of the code to which I was hoping to refer, which deals with violence in a rather academic fashion. It states:
It may be asked why violence has to be portrayed at all on the screen. The answers are clear. First, conflict is the essence of drama, and conflict often leads to violence. Second, the real world contains much violence in many forms, and when television seeks to reflect the world in fact or in fiction it would be unrealistic and untrue to ignore its violent aspects.
It continues:
The regular and recurrent spectacle of violence might lead viewers to think that violence in one form or another is being given the stamp of approval. Once violence is thus accepted and tolerated people will, it is believed, tend to become more callous, and more indifferent to suffering imposed on the victims of violence.
That reservation is right for I think that that is what happens. Violence is being shown almost for the sake of violence, and that is especially true of American productions. It may be that life in America is much more violent than it is here, but it seems that imported American productions contain violence as an element of production, as though it must be present. It seems that those who produce them take the view that there must be an element of humour, a handsome hero, a malevolent villain and a quota of violence.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue of imported programmes is even more unclear because of the operation of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876? I tabled a new clause that was designed to deal with the problem and, regretfully, it has not been selected.

Mr. Mitchell: I agree that the Bill does not deal with that problem. It is unfortunate that it does not deal with other problems as well.
I was addressing myself to the way in which we should deal with the problem of violence. We shall not deal with it effectively by introducing Bills of this sort. In doing so, we are pursuing a hare down another alley, a hare which is irrelevant to what I, the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth and others see as the main problem. The only effective way to deal with the matter is by directing the pressure of opinion within the House and outside on the broadcasting authorities and causing them to recognise reality, which is that a steady accumulation of violence shown on television innures viewers to violence and creates an expectation in the minds of young people that violence is a part of life when it is not. This makes people behave in a violent fashion. They have seen it on television and they are innured to it. That is the danger. We must recognise the nature of the problem, focus on it and deal with it by putting pressure on the broadcasting institutions, which are very much open to pressure.

Mr. Cash: In the video working party's report, which came out in 1983, there was a specific reference to the problem of violence on television. It stated clearly that
on grounds of social responsibility, broadcast television has also avoided giving the details of drug use".
The programme "East Enders" is a good example of the broadcasting authorities ignoring their social responsibility despite understanding it. Against that background I should like to know what the hon. Gentleman thinks could be done to solve the problem.

Mr. Mitchell: There is not much purpose in putting that question to me. The question should be put to the hon. Member for Davyhulme, the author of the Bill. We should ask ourselves what the Bill does to resolve the problem, and the answer is nothing.
It is important that concern is being expressed about the portrayal of violence on television screens. It is important also that it is not channelled into a blind alley where it will thrash around impotently. It should not be thought that something will be achieved by enacting the Bill, when it will not, so that the heat is taken off the broadcasting authorities and necessary changes are not made.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that "obscenity" does not include violence. There have been court cases since 1982 in which it has been stated that violence is included in obscenity. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman is asking me to trust his expertise as a lawyer and to accept that violence will be dealt with by the Bill, I must decline to do so. Violence is not dealt with explicitly in the Bill and I see no way in which the clause, even as we hope to amend it, will deal with it. The more effective course is to frame a code of practice which recognises the problem and deals with it directly. At present we are running down blind alleys and talking about sex, indecency and human sexual relations when the real problem is the changed attitude to violence which is implicit in the constant deluge of violence from television screens.
In general, self-discipline is the answer. In general, I think that proper guidelines are the right approach. That

is the way in which the industry should go. We should not seek to interfere, especially when our interference is unpredictable. The codes on violence need strengthening because there is a problem, which has concerned many of us for a long time, which they do not deal with satisfactorily. The Bill would not deal with the problem satisfactorily, either. I refer to trailers of programmes which show scenes of violence in programmes that are to be shown later in the evening, which are put out at peak viewing time. Violence is used as something of production value.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that changes in EEC legislation will mean that the amount of American material shown on our television screens may increase considerably? With the introduction of new satellites we shall find ourselves with very few means of controlling the material in the way in which we can at present. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea to consider that problem as well?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend must not tempt me to talk about Brussels, from whence all blessings flow. I should like to cut down the number of imported American programmes. Such programmes go out at peak viewing times and have a steady build-up effect.
I have been slightly diverted, for which I apologise. I conclude that the case for the Bill is not proven and, indeed, that the Bill is counter-productive. The real approach must be to make the IBA and the BBC aware of the strong public concern about violence. They should tighten up their codes of conduct. This clause does not tighten up those codes. Such controls will not be effected by chasing off down the blind alley of this clause but through pressure from this House and outside.

Mr. Key: I support the Bill. I have listened to the arguments of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in support of her amendment but I hope to illustrate why I cannot support it.
I am not quite as impervious to the opinions of my constituents as the hon. Lady appears to be on this issue. Sometimes legislation is ahead of public opinion—one could cite the Shops Bill—but usually it is behind public opinion. This is the case with the Bill. We must seek a balance between reflecting public opinion and forming it. Legislation sets the tone for everyone in the community, not just those who break the law. The point is not that all programmes should be suitable for children. There is also the effect of the programes on adults especially the weaker adults in our society. Television often reinforced taboos, it reinforces male chauvenism and sexism.
I have received a great deal of representation on this matter. The director of the Diocescan Board for Social Responsibility summed it up when he said:
We must start making connections on crucial issues which affect the moral and social well-being of our citizens and especially for our young people.
For that reason, it is important to address ourselves to the responsibilities of the IBA and the BBC. I notice that there is only one hon. Lady present, although there were three from time to time. Those responsible in the BBC and the IBA are not responsive to women's views on this issue. Women are sick and tired of seeing their bodies used for men's sexual gratification wherever they look on films, TV, video nasties, magazines, advertising, sex shops, art, entertainment and so on.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman also agree that women are sick of not having equal representation in this House and that that is one reason why there are so few of us here?

Mr. Key: I am delighted to hear the hon. Lady say that, because there are more hon. Ladies in the Conservative party than there are in her party.

Mrs. Dunwoody: That is because there are more Conservative Members.

Mr. Key: I have always supported the need for equal representation in the House and we would discuss this matter in a more rational manner if there were more hon. Ladies in the House.
The Salisbury Women's Media Watch Committee has been constructive in its attitude to women. It states:
The underlying attitude of society is that sex and women should be available for men on their terms and when they require it.
The committee believes that men must learn to be responsible and control their sexuality as women have always done. I agree with that, but what is the IBA and the BBC doing about it?
Most civilisations and nations measure their success in terms of the pursuit of the peace, beauty and culture which they bequeath to future generations. What will we be remembered for? There are more musicals in London than on Broadway—both in the west end and in the provinces—and our theatre is better than anywhere else in the world, but why do we under-value our international success by obscenity on television?
Recently, The Sun newspaper had a go at me because I was not prepared to vote against the Shops Bill. In its leader "The Sun Says" it claimed that a number of us did not have the guts to vote at all. I wish The Sun would not see all the issues in black and white terms. Sometimes its judgments appear to be upside down, but perhaps that is natural in view of the nationality of the proprietor. The Sun implied that those of us who did not vote somehow let the side down; it asked how much freedom of choice we favoured. I shall attempt to illustrate how much freedom I would favour with regard to the Bill and where I draw the line.
On the day on which The Sun castigated me, many incidences of sex and violence were recorded in that newspaper—on pages 3, 7, 11, 13, 15, 16, 22 and 24. I believe that The Sun and other newspapers could be an immense force for good if they seriously consider the issues involved.
I believe that a culture of violence is being actively created not just by the makers of video nastier but by the makers of violently aggressive pop music. That in its turn spawns punk fashion and anti-social behaviour. The men with the money behind the video makers must share the blame.

Mr. Greg Knight: I am very interested in what my hon. Friend says but can he give me an example of violently aggressive pop music?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that that relates to the duties of the IBA or the BBC.

Mr. Key: I am aware of my hon. Friend's professional interest—and expertise in the pop world, and I shall have a word with him afterwards about it.
Those who finance, write, produce or sanction television programmes tend to portray explicit sex and

violence as normal and acceptable. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said that there is concern about such violence, but I rather doubt it.
I utterly condemn the irresponsibility of the National Campaign for the Reform of the Obscene Publications Acts, affiliated to the National Council of Civil Liberties, which is urging us to defeat this Bill. It has written to a number of Members of Parliament that it regards the Bill as a
monstrously authoritarian measure, quite unnecessary and totally unacceptable in a society in which freedom of choice and freedom of expression are supposed to be paramount.
I do not believe that freedom of choice and freedom of expression are paramount and I believe that the BBC and the IBA should take that into account. The NCROPA also believes that the Bill represents
an outrageous incursion on free artistic and cultural creativity.
It suggests:
even if there were any justification in the need to take some action 'protect' children from possible exposure to sexual and/or violently explicit material (they are not inseparebly intertwined, as many seem to assume), Parliament has seen fit to legislate in a much less rigid and prohibitive fashion with regard to many other products.

Mr. Brinton: Does not the hon. Gentleman concede that the NCROPA has one point: that the Obscene Publications Act urgently needs reform before any new amendments can be added to it?

Mr. Key: That may be so, but it does not detract from the fact that it is trying to persuade hon. Members to squash the Bill for what I believe are fundamentally misguided reasons. We are discussing the matter because of the failure of the IBA and BBC guidelines.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich talked of the need for evidence. The connection between violence on television and the increase in violent crime is self-evident. We have also found that children can repeat the details of the last crime that they saw on television, when asked or in play. Crime and fear are thus increased.
Judgments at the Old Bailey regularly accept the defendant's statement that he has been influenced by what he has seen or read. It is accepted that defendants copy acts of indecency and violence. Such behaviour is well researched and was quoted at length in the study, "Video Violence and Children" in 1985, which was edited by Geoffrey Barlow and Alison Hill for the parliamentary group video inquiry. The organisation Kidscape has produced a mass of similar evidence.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has picked on the same argument as me and the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). The central question, however, is what the Bill has to do with the evidence on violence and what it does to check the deluge of violence from the screens and its influence.

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has addressed those arguments adequately and I shall not repeat them. I am convinced by those arguments and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not.
The nation's opinion on the issue is slow to crystallise but, as with the link between smoking and cancer, the link between pornography, violence and sex abuse is accepted. Those who support the amendment have not addressed the fact that one in 10 British adults are sexually abused as children and that 75 per cent. of sex assaults on children are committed by people they know.
I should like to give some examples of the IBA's and the BBC's irresponsibility. I understand that, on 30 April, Thames Television is to screen an explicit programme on incest immediately after "Playschool." The IBA rescheduled the programme, but changed its mind. Why? We are asked to trust broadcasting authorities' judgment and then that happens.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not take it upon myself to defend the IBA—I have my arguments with it—but the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that many people are sexually abused as children and then complain if television addresses itself to that real and frightening problem. I have not seen the programme, so I do not know what it shows or says but we shall never break out of the horrifying cycle—the crime has gone on for thousands of years—unless children, especially, are taught to realise that they have no involvement in the guilt attached to incest and told what support is available to those who are subjected to it.

Mr. Key: I entirely agree that we must break out of the cycle, but I believe that the cycle is being reinforced and aggravated.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) mentioned the news. Recently, the first item on the news, whether breakfast television, midday news, the 6 pm news or the late night news, has been a horrific rape case. There is no time for a mother to rush to the set and switch it off when the news comes on after children's television. News producers and editors have a responsibility to take account of the time at which the news bulletin appears, and its substance.
Like others present, I have read the guidelines. They are woefully inadequate. They refer to not dwelling on the heartache of parents or victims, but how often do we see that? I do not want to talk about censorship in terms of cutting out news items, but I want much greater sensitivity in their presentation. There is no need to censor the news, but there is every need to ensure that it is presented in the least offensive way possible, while retaining the facts.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman is making a false point. He is advocating qualitative censorship. Censorship in totalitarian countries begins by influencing the content, and eventually it cuts it out altogether. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from his dilemma. He is advocating the censorship of news programmes. Does he want to censor the News of the World and the other lascivious stuff that appears in newspapers?

Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to stray from the amendment and to say more about The Sun than I have already said about its reporting of events.

Mr. Brinton: My hon. Friend has raised a very important point about television news. I have here a letter from the editor of Independent Television News that was written to Michael Grade on 19 February. It takes his point entirely and it should be put on the record. It says:
We at ITN are acutely aware of our responsibility to avoid the transmission of gratuitously offensive material, and are sensitive to the need for restraint during those hours when large numbers of children are likely to be watching.
What is wrong with that?

Mr. Key: Because they have utterly failed. I was watching "Breakfast Time" this week with my small children. The first item was an explicit description of rape and murder. That is why that letter is worthless.
I introduce another point that I hope the Opposition will not take in a party political sense. A Labour party political broadcast used a child actor to portray a horrific scene in which a little girl left home, went through an underpass, heard footsteps and ran. It was meant to illustrate a perfectly respectable political point about law and order. This broadcast was drawn to my attention by a children's organisation. My worry is that that broadcast did not portray a law and order issue. Children need to be educated about how to cope with that kind of situation, but the broadcast showed that that child was afraid of the police. I am sure that that was not the intention of the broadcast, but it showed that the broadcasters do not perceive the problem from the child's point of view.
No research that I have seen supports the view that there is no link between sex and violence on television. The BBC and the IBA are largely responsible for that. I applaud the ITV code of October 1971. It says:
This Code cannot provide universal rules. The programme maker must carry responsibility for his own decisions. In so sensitive an area, risks require special justification. If in doubt, cut.
That is extremely good advice.
The onus is upon those who oppose the Bill to provide a constructive solution. It is not, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) suggested, the media who need to be protected. It is our children who need to be protected. We teach children to cross the road safely and to be able to go near to water without being harmed. We do not find this difficult, because these are accepted risks. Not to teach children road safety and water safety would be considered foolish by most adults. Children are also warned about the dangers of talking to or going with strangers, not because the vast majority of adults would harm children but because a few deviants might. The vast majority of children are assaulted by those they know.
Children must not just be warned about strangers. That is similar to warning them when they cross the road to watch out only for red cars. We must break through the taboos that prevent parents from discussing these issues and try to persuade the IBA, the BBC and all programme producers that they must adopt a responsible attitude. If we get no further than that with this Bill, we shall have achieved something.

Mr. Chris Smith: I should say at the outset that I have an interest to declare in that I have a close working relationship with the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians, the film technicians trade union. That means that I have a particular interest in the impact of clause 1 and the amendment that we are discussing.
The debate on this amendment has been characterised so far by almost universal agreement from both sides of the Chamber on two points—first, that there is a lot of genuine concern about the impact of television particularly of the portrayal of violence and, secondly, that there is a need to protect children. Those points are held in common by both sides of the House and by both proponents and opponents of the Bill.
The key question that has arisen, and which I fear has not really been answered by anybody who has spoken against the amendment and in favour of the clause as it


stands, is whether the Bill will bring us any nearer to those goals which we all share. I fear that my answer is that it will not. In some ways, it takes us a bit further away from those goals.
Conservative Members have strongly and genuinely made the point that in the face of what is happening in television, particularly the portrayal of violence on television, there is a need for Parliament, in the words of the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), to do something about it.
Justified as that response may be, it is no sensible basis for legislation. It has been said that it is the duty of the House to remind broadcasters of their responsibilities. I agree. It is the duty of all of us as Members of Parliament to reflect public concerns, to speak out about them and to remind broadcasters of what the public are concerned about.
However, it is not the job of the House to put on the statute book legislation which is defective simply because we wish to carry out by that process that business of reminding broadcasters of their responsibilities. There are other ways of doing that.
Let me refer Conservative Members to the debate that we had on a Friday morning many months ago in the House, before the Bill even had its Second Reading, on the impact of violence on young people and the rising tide of violent crime among young people. I spoke out then about my anxiety about a number of types of programme which are shown on television. That is the way in which we should be getting the message across, not by putting on the statute book legislation which will not tackle the problem about which we are all concerned.

Mr. Cash: In a letter in The Times today, which I think has been quoted, Lord Goodman says that at the end of the day it is up to the people who are running the programmes to exercise a degree of social responsibility and that that is the way to solve the problem. That is really what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The video working party, in its report on violence on television, says that drug use should not be shown on television because of the problem of social responsibility. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that MIND has said that the drugs scene in "East Enders" has an adverse effect upon young people resulting in more suicides and that that is a sign of the failure of all the interconnecting alternative suggestions? That demonstrates that what the hon. Gentleman is saying has failed and that something else must be put in its place in order to prevent those young people from committing suicide.

Mr. Smith: I am at something of a disadvantage in replying to the hon. Gentleman specifically. At present I do not read The Times so I have not seen Lord Goodman's letter. That is an act of self-censorship. It is an active choice that I am exercising as a Member of the public and which parents can exercise when they turn off the television set. It is precisely the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was making some time ago.

Mr. Churchill: rose—

Mr. Smith: I shall finish replying to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) then I will give way.
I did not see the specific episode of "East Enders" to which much reference has been made. Of course, if there

is concern of the kind which the hon. Gentleman has identified, that is precisely the sort of issue which must be considered extremely carefully by the governors of the BBC, the board of the IBA and to which the guidelines which they issue must address themselves. If there are such failures the House should be bringing pressure upon the governors of the BBC and the board of the IBA to consider those matters much more carefully than they may hitherto have done. That is a responsibility of the House.
When the hon. Member for Stafford says that something else must be done he is identifying precisely the problem about which I have been speaking. This Bill will do nothing to stop incidents of the sort shown on "East Enders". It will have no impact on such incidents. To claim, as he appears to by implication, that the Bill will in some way do what he believes should be done is not seeing the content of the Bill and what it will achieve.

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman admitted that he is not able to see The Times at present. Can he say whether that is a matter of self-regulation or is he bowing to the dictates of censorship by his own party machine?

Mr. Smith: It is purely an act of choice on my part. As someone who only two evenings ago was standing with striking print workers outside the plant at Wapping to identify my support for their struggle, it is clearly a choice that I have made and would have made, whatever decision might have been made—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted further down that road. We must get back to the amendment.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Smith: I will give way as long as we are not trespassing on Mr. Deputy Speaker's ruling.

Mr. Mitchell: We are not trespassing on it. I have an agreement with the News International reporters. They do not report a word I say, just like before.
I agree with the point that my hon. Friend is making about the Bill. I wonder whether he agrees with my point that this amendment is the nub of our problem. If the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) will accept this amendment, since I understand that he is to accept all the other amendments in order to get the Bill through, he can almost certainly have his Bill. This amendment is the sticking point for the Opposition. If the amendment is accepted the Bill is acceptable.

Mr. Smith: I am not sure that I would go along with my hon. Friend entirely. Although the amendment would improve the Bill it would still leave a number of defects. I might perhaps say in passing, had new clauses 1 and 2 been accepted for debate, and had the hon. Member for Davyhulme sought to include them within the Bill, that my attitude may conceivably have been different. However, I am afraid that that has not been possible.
I accept the motives of the hon. Member for Davyhulme. Even if the Bill does not reach the statute book he will have achieved a considerable amount by bringing issues before the House. Evidence of that can be found in the IBA's spring 1986 quarterly journal, Airwaves, which contains an article by Robin Duval, the chief assistant of television, who says:
But all this activity is, at the least, a very healthy reminder that it would be a good idea to remind ourselves"—
that is the IBA—
and everybody else of just what it is we do about section


4(1)(a). We have had a few shocks recently and we are publicising our case. But perhaps we should do it not just now, but again. And again.
Mr. Duval is saying that the IBA has picked up from the activity around the Bill the message that there is concern and a need to examine carefully its own activities, not just now but in the future, on a regular basis. That is an achievement. That means that pressure is receiving a response.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: We have discussed the subject on a number of occasions over the past seven years. We can agree about the boards and governors and codes of conduct, but we are worried that productions do not always conform with the guidelines. The producers of programmes do not seem to conform to the guidelines. How are we to tackle that problem?

Mr. Smith: I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. On the whole the guidelines are admirable. However, some areas are not covered in the guidelines. I glanced rapidly this morning through the IBA guidelines to see what they say about the taking of drugs and overdoses. That problem is not adequately covered in the guidelines and it might be sensible to draw that to the attention of the governors and the board.
The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) refers to the use of the guidelines by the producers. I had a long discussion only last week with a programme writer who made a programme which went out on 1 April. It was a spoof produced specifically for April fools' day. It was about Hitler's activities during the war. He told me that in making the programme he examined the guidelines closely because he was worried in case any material in the programme was offensive to anyone in the Jewish community in Britain. Having checked the guidelines, he amended his programme. The programme was then watched by high-level management in the broadcasting authority to check whether the guidelines were being observed. The guidelines are frequently operated in that way. It is a careful process and, on the whole, it seems to work effectively.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the recent court case in which the Director General of the BBC, Mr. Bill Whitney and Mr. Shaw, who is now with the Independent Televison Contractors Association, were involved? They made it clear that it was extremely difficult for the line of command to which the hon. Gentleman is referring to produce the results that he would like to see the guidelines produce.
Will the hon. Gentleman also accept that the process of taking action under the Broadcasting Act to enforce the guidelines is ineffective because it involves judicial review under order 53, which no one can use to any significant extent? In other words, self-regulation does not work. Therefore, there is an obligation on Parliament to ensure that a criminal line is drawn at the bottom.

Mr. Smith: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman for a number of reasons, principally because the operation of the guidelines is inevitably a subjective process. There are guidelines on a number of sensitive issues on which clear-cut, black and white, easy decisions cannot be made. Difficult and delicate matters are involved and they vary according to the context of the programme and so on.
For example, the IBA has television programme guidelines on bad language. They say:
There is no absolute ban on the use of bad language. But when used it must be defensible in terms of context and authenticity. It is one thing, for example, when such language occurs in a documentary programme, and quite another when it is introduced for its own sake in a studio production. Many people who would not be unduly shocked by swearing are offended when it is used to excess and without justification.
The key issues are the frequency of use and the context in which bad language is used. It is not easy to decide on such matters. It is difficult for a court or a judge, let alone for the DPP, to make such decisions. It is easier to make the decisions during the careful process of considering guidelines for overwhelmingly responsible programme making.
Imported broadcasting material must be considered under the guidelines, but there is a problem. Imported material is subject to the discredited Customs Consolidation Act 1876, which should be wiped off the statute book and be replaced by a new definition of obscene and indecent which relates to the definition for material produced in Britain. There are different standards, and there should be the same standard. I hope that the Government will consider legislation in the forthcoming Session to eliminate that absurd anomaly in the law, which increases the difficulty in the case of imported broadcast material or material intended for broadcasting. I am very sorry that my new clause designed to clear up that anomaly was not accepted.
1 pm
If the clause is not amended, the major problem will be that the criminal law will effectively be brought into a field where at the moment we have the guidelines and the layers of responsibility that end ultimately with the governors of the BBC and the board of the IBA. The climate for producers and programme-makers will not be improved by that process.
A number of hon. Members have referred to letters that they have received from constituents. I have received more letters from constituents opposing the Bill than from people who are in favour of it. One of my constituents wrote to me in February, saying:
I have five children of my own, all under 20. My wife and I regard the kind of society this … could lead to as more objectionable, in its intolerance, philistinism and authoritarianism, than the one it is designed to rescue them from … No one in his senses wants children exposed to degrading representations of sex or, even more pictorially available, violence … But this bizarre … bill simply won't do. It can be sure of years of tiresome and implacable resistance if it becomes law. If there is anything useful any of us can do at this late stage, please let us know.
That letter graphically illustrates the problem. There is undoubtedly public concern in this area. Although in Committee the hon. Member for Davyhulme admitted that there is no evidence at all of any problem connected with radio, there is a general concern that the impact of television and radio may be deleterious to children. However, I do not believe that the clause, unamended, is the way to protect children and to make those concerns known forcibly to the programme-makers. I do not believe that legal restraint is the way to deal with such difficult, complex and subjective issues. There should be pressure, but the clause, unamended, is not one that I can support.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 23, Noes 76.

Division No. 158]
[1.05 pm


AYES


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Madden, Max


Barnett, Guy
Marlow, Antony


Brinton, Tim
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Randall, Stuart


Corbyn, Jeremy
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Dubs, Alfred
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Skinner, Dennis


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Wareing, Robert


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Wheeler, John


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)



Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Mr. Ian Mikardo and


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Mr. Chris Smith.


Litherland, Robert





NOES


Amess, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Maclean, David John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Major, John


Bendall, Vivian
Marlow, Antony


Benyon, William
Mates, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Mather, Carol


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Mellor, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Merchant, Piers


Bright, Graham
Neubert, Michael


Browne, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Normanton, Tom


Cash, William
Pawsey, James


Chapman, Sydney
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Churchill, W. S.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Cope, John
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Dicks, Terry
Roe, Mrs Marion


Dover, Den
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Durant, Tony
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Sims, Roger


Favell, Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Sumberg, David


Gow, Ian
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Grant, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Greenway, Harry
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Thornton, Malcolm


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Viggers, Peter


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Wilkinson, John


Howard, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Wolfson, Mark


Jackson, Robert



Jessel, Toby
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Mr. Robert Keys and


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens.


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Mikardo: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 11, after `article', insert
'which has been edited and is otherwise completed for transmission'.

Mr. Mikardo: Subsection (4) is very disturbing—

Mr. Churchill: Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further, may I say to those whose amendments have been selected for debate that I am willing to accept all the remaining amendments, including that of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mikardo: I am deighted to hear that. The effect of the hon. Gentleman's comments will be seriously to curtail the observations I was about to make. I do not now need to persuade the hon. Gentleman or the House of the validity of the amendment and of the dangers that lie within clause 2(4).
I would like, nevertheless, to say a word or two about something that may affect some subsequent amendments. The first line of clause 1(4) of the Bill, contains one of the 12 instances in the Bill in which the word "obscene" occurs. That word occurs in all the clauses in the Bill.
I would like to say a few words about that as I believe it will affect our attitude to the Bill, and perhaps relieve me of the obligation of making these points on Third Reading.
We all agree that the present law is defective in these matters, and the Bill is intended to amend the law. The evidence for the law being defective lies in the huge amount of litigation that the present law has occasioned. There have been a number of cause célèbre trials which have aroused much feeling, which has cost an awful lot of money and which have taken up a great deal of time.
It was for that reason that I was absolutely delighted when I heard that the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) was bringing in a Bill to amend the present law. When I saw the Bill, I realised, as we have all realised, that his laundry list made the Bill very defective. Nevertheless, I had hoped that in the course of the Bill's proceedings, in Committee and on Report, we would manage to find a definition of "obscenity" which would enable us to amend the law in a sensible way.
I voted for the Second Reading on those grounds. I did not like the Bill as it was, but I thought that we should have the chance to amend it and perhaps have a good Bill in the end. The great problem with the present law, which has not been avoided but made worse by the Bill, is that we are required to put ourselves into someone else's mind and decide whether there is a tendency to deprave and corrupt somebody. A judge must therefore decide what went on in the mind of the reader of a book or of the viewer of a television film. It is never easy to put oneself into someone else's mind.
In one respect, obscenity is like beauty, it lies in the eye of the beholder. The line between prudery and prurience is very narrow and wobbly. We saw some evidence of that a few weeks ago when my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) moved a motion to introduce a Bill on a subject very much cognate with the Bill before us. On that occasion a number of Conservative Members behaved disgracefully and those hon. Members are supporters of today's Bill. They behaved in such a way as perfectly to illustrate the narrow boundary between prudery and prurience. They giggled in lascivious recall of what they had seen on page three of The Sun that morning. They reminded me very much—especially the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) and for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), and the hon. and highly temporary Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens)—of a 12-year-old boy in class, lasciviously looking through his first batch of dirty pictures, peeping at them surreptitiously because they are interleaved in the pages of his algebra textbook. They were totally immature. These hon. Members support this Bill


because they believe in a high moral tone, yet when my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood introduced her Bill they behaved in almost a lecherous fashion.
We must now—I shall be brief in view of what the hon. Member for Davyhulme has said—ask ourselves whether we have managed in the Bill to put right the defect in the present law which arises from the fact that a person making a judgment is required to put himself into the mind of a different person. I am required at my age—most judges are nearer my age than that of most other hon. Members—to put myself in the mind of a child.

Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for the hon. Member for Bowand Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) to address himself to the amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening carefully to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). Nothing which he has said so far has been out of order.

Mr. Mikardo: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am addressing myself to the key word, which is "obscene." I promise the hon. Member for Davyhulme that I shall not be long. If it is difficult for a judge to put himself into the mind of another adult, it is virtually impossible to put himself into the mind of a young teenager. I know that that is so. I find it difficult to understand the moves of my grandchildren and I sometimes find it difficult even to understand their language. The generation gap is widening all the time, and when it is a double generation gap it is extremely wide.
I do not know what will tend to deprave and corrupt a 15-year-old. I do know that many 12, 14 or 15-year-olds know a great deal more about life than I did when I was 12, 14 or 15 years old. The attitudes of young people these days are different from those which obtained when I was young. Young people are very informed and they receive a wider education in many areas than we did. They read much more widely and the situation is entirely different now from what it was previously.
We are not living in a Victorian world although there is much talk these days about returning to Victorian values. It should be understood that there was far more prurience in Victorian times than there is now. The mixture of prudery and prurience in Victorian times is illustrated by the fact that they put cloth round the legs of grand pianos because they thought that the legs could deprave and corrupt. What rubbish it all was.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Davyhulme for his willingness to accept the amendment. With all respect to him, I think that the Bill still remains gravely defective. I do not blame him for not having found the magic formula which would make good law instead of the present law. One day there may be Members of this place who are cleverer than we are—things may become easier with a change in the climate of the times 10 or 15 years hence—and the stage may be reached when we can make an improving amendment to the present law. To my deep regret, I do not think that the Bill is an improvement.
In view of the observations of the hon. Member for Davyhulme, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member telling me that he is not moving the amendment?

Mr. Mikardo: I cannot tell you that, because I have moved it, but I also observe that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) is seeking to speak and I do not want to prevent him from doing so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said that he was prepared to accept all the amendments on the Order Paper which were to be called. I wonder whether the House could receive some clarification from my hon. Friend regarding what he has said. With regard to this bunch of amendments, the amendment which has just been moved seeks to omit subsection (4) from the Bill and the amendment in my name, amendment No. 5, seeks to amend subsection (4). What is my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme actually offering the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member for Davyhulme would like to clarify the position?

Mr. Churchill: When I said that I was prepared to accept all the amendments that had been selected, the effect of accepting amendment No. 4 would mean that amendment No. 5 would fall.

Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker and to the House. I was in error. The hon. Member for Davyhulme cannot accept the amendment unless it has been moved and he cannot accept it if it is withdrawn. Therefore I was wrong in suggesting that I should seek leave to withdraw the amendment. If there are hon. Members who wish to speak I do not wish to interfere.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In case the House is confused, we have now reached the position where amendment No. 4 has been moved and we are therefore discussing amendment No. 4 together with amendment No. 5, and if any hon. Members rise I shall call them.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you for the clarification. However, I still have a problem because I do not understand the distinction. Amendment No. 4 leaves out subsection (4) but amendment No. 5, which will presumably be selected and will presumably be moved if we are to discuss it, leaves out a part of the subsection. I still do not understand what we are actually leaving out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a well-known procedure in the House. The discussion is taking place on amendment No. 4. We are discussing amendment No. 5 with that. It is perfectly in order to discuss both of them in this debate. When the debate concludes I will, of course, put the Question on amendment No. 4, which is the substantive amendment being discussed. The House will then have an opportunity to come to a conclusion on that, unless it is withdrawn.

Mr. Brinton: I will console my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) by being brief. I rise, if I have understood the technicalities correctly, to speak in favour of amendment No. 4 which my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme has already accepted, so I will withdraw my own amendment. It is my understanding of subsection (4) that anyone found in possession of what is defined in the Bill as an "obscene


article" would be assumed to have it in his or her possession for gain. That needed clearer definition hence my amendment No. 5.
The editor has to edit the film and the cameraman has to shoot it, but if either of them are found to be in possession of the shots that went the wrong way at the wrong time, they could be found to be in possession of film or tape for gain.
Gain poses another problem. As far as I am aware, the BBC does not try to make a profit out of its normal operations in Britain—it uses licence payers' money. Who is considered to gain? I can understand the idea if any individual uses material for criminal gain on the black market, but will the staff producer or staff cameraman on a salary be considered to gain? I could have hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme would have defined more clearly who is responsible.

Mr. Mikardo: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is an even worse element. Clause 1(4) weakens, if it does not break, the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. There is such a thing as an offence of possessing goods knowing them to have been stolen. If anybody proposed that the law should provide that anybody who possesses stolen goods should be presumed to know that they have been stolen, every lawyer in the country would scream his head off in protest.

Mr. Brinton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was about to argue that point, but will no longer do so as he has put it much more fluently than I could. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme will realise that there should have been a definition of who is responsible. It might be the governors of the BBC, the members of the IBA or the director-general.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I want to speak to the amendment, not to bury it—which seems to have been the original assumption—but to praise it. I am still puzzled about the distinction between amendment No. 4 and amendment No. 5 and the effect on the Obscene Publications Act 1959, as amendment No. 5 would appear to narrow the scope more satisfactorily.

Mr. Brinton: I have been a bit confused by the procedure, but my understanding is that, if amendment No. 4 is accepted, amendment No. 5 will fall. I rashly said that I proposed to withdraw my amendment. Perhaps I had better wait and see as the debate might change hon. Member's minds and my amendment might be accepted.

Mr. Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help with the procedural point. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) is right. If amendment No. 4 is agreed to, amendment No. 5 falls, but if amendment No. 4 is not agreed to and the hon. Gentleman wishes the House to make a decision on amendent No. 5, I shall be preapred to allow a Division on it.

Mr. Mitchell: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That clarifies matters in regard to the withdrawal or pursuance of the amendment. I should now like to ask about the effect on the Obscene Publications Act 1959. By defeating amendment No. 1, the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has made the Bill unacceptable to me. I support the Bill in practice and principle, but

I cannot accept the interference with broadcasting institutions that is implicit in clause 1. Our amendment was a satisfactory way of dealing with that problem, by removing the broadcasting organisations—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now harking back to an amendment that has already been dealt with. He must deal with this amendment, which is concerned with publication for gain.

Mr. Mitchell: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is absolutely correct. However, the failure of the amendment means that the Bill is now unacceptable. I wanted to support the Bill, but because of the failure of that amendment I am now unable to do so.
Subsection (4) demonstrates the difficulties involved in interfering with the broadcasting institutions by means of legislation. Who is to say at what point the interference shall stop, or at what point the material becomes ready for transmission, or at what point it becomes subject to control? The broadcasting organisations have in their possession parts of programmes that might be considered to be obscene but which form a contributory element to the overall programme. They are there as part of the editing and stitching together of a programme in the process of building it up. However, part of that material could be regarded as obscene.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that unless subsection (4) is removed from clause 1 the whole purpose of the Bill is likely to be negated? In the very act of looking at what might be deemed to be obscene and indecent, the programme producer is bound to have in his or her possession material that he or she is considering. The object of the Bill is to encourage that process.

Mr. Mitchell: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who is correct. However, my point is that the fact that subsection (4) ought to have been included in the Bill illustrates the extreme difficulty about legislating to remove the television and broadcasting exemption. When that principle is accepted, which is what the Bill does, it is difficult to know at what point the interference will stop and at what point it will begin.
I recall examples of such material. They were not included in the nightly magazine type of programme with which I was concerned. That material was suitable and, indeed, compulsory for family viewing in Yorkshire. It was an extremely important and entertaining current affairs programme. However, material for other programmes that were intended to be broadcast late at night could, at different stages of its production, have been regarded as obscene. Had this clause not been removed it would have made the assembly of such a programme extremely difficult. That illustrates the difficulty of legislating to cover broadcasting material.
What will be the effect of removing this subsection upon the existing legislation? I presume that we shall return to the status quo ante and that the Obscene Publications Act 1959 will apply. We shall have to consider at what stage the broadcasting exemption is to be applied. Somebody who makes a programme for transmission is making it for gain. The gain may be to the cameraman, whose wages will be paid, or the independent producer may gain, in the sense that his contract may depend upon the programme. Under the obscene publications legislation, the possession of obscene material for gain is an offence.
We have to ask at what stage the broadcasting exemption will be introduced if this subsection is removed. One therefore has to consider whether the definition that is included in amendment No. 5 will deal with this problem more satisfactorily than the removal of the subsection, which is the intention of amendment No. 4. It is important that the Minister should tell us the effect of removing that subsection.

Mr. Brinton: Perhaps the amendment is too indirect and I should have written it more carefully. I was trying to achieve the position that once a programme has been edited, is ready for transmission and has become in every sense the property of the BBC or the programme company, the poor old DPP will know exactly who to go for, whereas earlier the BBC or programme company might be able to deny responsibility.

Mr. Mitchell: That makes the point clear and I can accept that. He is saying that the exemption of broadcasting material from the Obscene Publications Act 1959 becomes effective at the point when an edited programme is ready for transmission. That is a clear and satisfactory definition which is workable.
The problem is what happens to the material before that. We are now making that material subject to the Obscene Publications Act 1959. We all know that putting together a television programme is in some senses like building a Meccano—there is a collection of bits to put together. Those bits, some of them individually, could be indecent or obscene and all of them have been produced for gain in the sense that the people employed on them are either paid wages to produce them or are working on a contract to produce them and so make a gain from the production of that material. Therefore, they come under the 1959 Act. Any one bit, construed on its own could be indecent. Each is part of an entity which must be judged as a whole rather than in bits, but possession of the particular bits creates a danger. That is the difficulty in which we find ourselves as soon as we start trying to extend the legislation in this kind of way. Problems are created for the individual possessing particular bits.
I hope that the Minister will be able to set my mind at rest on that. I would rather not be in this position. I would rather not have extended the legislation to broadcasting and television but that is what we have decided to do and that is the position that we must now face.
I can remember people working in television who have taken material home or have put it out to production units, and where a programme has been put together bit by bit, Indeed, I can remember occasions where particularlysalubrious bits have been strung together in a Christmas film at which everybody giggles, nudges and winks and which is a great social occasion and a bit of fun. Nothing is seriously intended for publication but the material has been produced for gain, and is part—perhaps a discarded part—of a programme which needs to be viewed as a whole.
What happens to such material and what happens to the material which is used in the programme in its incomplete state? What happens in the labs and in the editing? What happens if any pieces are taken out of the studio by those working on the programme? What happens if material is sent out to an independent unit? Large numbers of editors up and down the country are working on material under

their own steam at home, using their own video facilities. They may have facilities built on to the house. What will happen to them and the material under the Bill? That is the nightmare which we are facing.

Mr. Brinton: The hon. Gentleman has forced out of me an admission that I had hoped to withold. In 1962 I was the first newscaster on television to be seen nude fully frontal on the screen. That happened on a recorded programme before the days of editing. I was doing a programme about Turkish baths, the logical end to which was that I whipped off my towel, jumped into the pool and swam across. The programme's director promised me faithfully that he would cut from camera one to camera two at the appropriate moment. His finger slipped, he was a little late and there I was for a second or so in all my splendour. Had my hon. Friend's Bill or any sort of Bill against nudity been in operation I might have been sued, the director might have been sued or, should it have been the managing director of the company? That is the problem.

Mr. Mitchell: I suppose it depends upon whether that was regarded as a news flash or a shock horror probe. If the material is rescreened, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not ask me to endorse it publicly in the way in which so many of his colleagues endorsed the nudes in The Sun recently. That illustrates the problem.
I have featured in Christmas films in the intimacy and privacy of the BBC or ITV studios in which material has been put together, much of it harmless, to make it humorous and, in some cases it was indecent. All of that material has been produced for gain, I submit, under the definition of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

Mr. Dickens: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the rug has been pulled out from under his feet and from under the feet of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton)—two hon. Members who have had close connections with the television industry for most of their lives—when the sponsor of the Bill has accepted every amendment tabled thus far through to the end of the debate? Now, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby is struggling and throwing foolish reasons forward. Judges and jurors are sensible people. They can decide where the blame for material lies and if it is inadvertently put into the wrong hands. Do you accept that he has been embarrassed and that he is now clutching at straws to try to sink the Bill which has satisfied every amendment thus far?

Mr. Mitchell: I am sure that you are not struggling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not struggling. I can see that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth is struggling to reconcile his endorsement of nudes on page three of The Sun with his stand on other matters of public decency. I wonder what position his constituency party took on that endorsement.

Mr. Hayes: I hesitate to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth. However, I prosecute and defend obscene publications cases—I have probably seen more pornographic films than most hon. Members—and I do not think that I am depraved or corrupted. One of the reasons why the Obscene Publications Act 1959 has failed is that jurors differ from


county to county and from court to court. That is one of the difficulties, and often jurors are not the best people to decide. There is no consistency.

Mr. Mitchell: That is exactly the point I am making. There is no consistency. When one accepts the general principle of interference, one opens up a Pandora's box which it is difficult to regulate or control because the pattern becomes haphazard.
As for having the rug pulled from under me, my understanding of the speech of the hon. Member for Gravesham is that the rug was pulled from off him. I do not accept that the rug has been pulled from under me. I made clear my support for the general principle of this Bill. I cannot accept the interference in the broadcasting organisations and in the principle of self-discipline and self regulation, which is implicit. I asked the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) to withdraw amendment No. 1 and the rest of the Bill could go through without any particular problems. He did not do so. We are left with a Bill, the centre and dangerous part of which, is to allow interference in broadcasting institutions. The rest of the amendments to the Bill are acceptable and satisfactory. I am prepared to support them and there is strong public demand for them. However, under the guise of concern about violence we are creating a situation of unpredictable interference in the broadcasting organisations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again harping back to a previous amendment. We must talk about subsection (4), which relates to publications for gain.

Mr. Mitchell: I apologise. That is correct and I am sorry that I was drawn to that area. I have to explain my position.
Subsection (4) is straightforward. What are we opening up by removing the section? Once we accept the principle of interference, what scope will be left for inference with the broadcasting organisations, not just on the general principle of the programmes but on bits of the programmes before they are put together? Is this an attempt to hamstring the broadcasting organisations by acting on particular sections of programmes because they can be construed as coming within the context of the Obscene Publications Act 1959?
Those bits might be intended for a different whole, but as bits they might be indecent or obscene because they have been created for gain. Gain is implicit in the making of a programme.
It is wrong of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth to get up in a flush of moral indignation and denounce me for expressing a realistic anxiety. We must be rational about legislation. It is no use making emotional gestures and rushing into spasms of activity. Our job is to use our reason, to evaluate legislation and to ask whether it is the most effective way of dealing with a problem.
I think that the measure is inadequate and fails in this instance. I am right to express my concern, I hope that the Minister can set our minds at rest and tell us what will happen to bits under the 1959 legislation.

Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) in his intervention seemed to say that by the sweeping acceptance by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) of all the amendments, the House has been relieved of a problem.

It has not. Accepting the amendments in such a rush is proof of the problems that the legislation presents. The hon. Gentleman has said that he wishes to accept amendment No. 4, tabled by my hon. Friends and that, automatically, amendment No. 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton), will fall as a consequence.
I have considered the two amendments carefully and in spite of all the respect that I have for my hon. Friends I believe that amendment No. 5 addresses itself better to the problem than amendment No. 4. I am faced with a considerable problem.
The key principle with which the amendments attempt to deal is whether a programme maker, when assembling the bits of a programme, will be liable under the Obscene Publications Act for the content of all those bits, whether or not they are to be shown on public television. It cannot be right that a programme-maker when putting together a programme, when assessing all the bits of footage shot for that programme and when examining archive material, should be liable under the Obscene Publications Act. It cannot be right that he should be liable for every single bit in his possession, even if it is not to be shown. The principle is clear. The measure should cover only items which are actually shown or on the point of being shown on television. That seems to be the fair way.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I cannot understand my hon. Friend's reasoning. Why should that be the point at which material becomes immune? The component parts are as important as the whole and the threat to broadcasting can come from attempts to prosecute before the parts become a coherent, developed programme. Is not there a threat to the material before it is assembled?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend misunderstands me. My anxiety is that in the putting together of all the parts of the programme, the programme maker should have as wide a range of material as possible available to him. The material that he is considering should not automatically be liable for action under the Obscene Publications Act. Only when the material has been put together and is about to be shown should such considerations arise.
The removal of subsection (4) would leave us with subsection (5) which refers to publication of material that
was to take place in the course of a television or sound broadcast".
That presents the same problems as subsection (4). That is why I prefer amendment No. 5, which makes it clear that articles for broadcast that are to be subject to the Obscene Publications Act should be those that have been edited and are complete for transmission.
Inadequate as subsection (4) is, its removal will still leave us with a problem, because of the wording of subsection (5). However, if subsection (4) were amended by amendment No. 5 the intention of the House would be made clear.

Mr. Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of this point. I hope that he will accept the offer of my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) to accept amendment No. 4. Subsection (5) says:
Proceedings … shall not be instituted except by and with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions
and it refers to publication that
was to take place in the course of a television or sound broadcast".


Therefore, could not it be validly argued that an unedited film was not
to take place in the course of a television … broadcast
because some scenes would be edited out?

Mr. Smith: The problem lies in being able to prove such matters to the court or to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The burden of proof placed on the programme makers would be considerable. That is why I think that amendment No. 5 would be preferable to the deletion of subsection (4). I must therefore express my concern at the way in which the hon. Member for Davyhulme has simply grasped at one amendment, although the other, which would be preferable, would be effectively ruled out of consideration if it were accepted.

2 pm

Mr. Mellor: I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) a slight sensation that rather heavy weather was made of the amendment in the Mutt and Jeff act between the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). Frankly, not much turns on subsection (4), and I am not sure that we should get very excited about whether it is included in the Bill. It states only that someone
who has an obscene article in his ownership, possession or control with a view to its being shown
shall be deemed to have that article for publication or gain.
If the subsection is removed, the fact that he has that article in his possession for publication or gain will have to be proved; it will not be assumed.
I am well aware that parts of the 1959 Act have caused difficulties and are much criticised. However, there is a similar provision in the 1959 Act in relation to books, magazines and cinematograph film, and it has not caused any difficulty. Perhaps a somewhat disingenuous attempt is being made to hoist my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) on Morton's fork. He thought that it would be sensible to include subsection (4) on the basis that it reproduces for television the precise provisions of the 1959 Act that already apply elsewhere. He was told by those who seem to want to stop the progress of the Bill that he should remove subsection (4). Having agreed with them, he is then criticised for doing so. For whatever reasons people may oppose the Bill, no one believes that much turns on subsection (4), because it does not.

Mr. Dubs: The Minister's brief speech has not clarified matters. I have one or two doubts about what he has said. At this late stage in the debate, we owe it to ourselves and those whom we represent to be clear about what the amendment will do. When I first read subsection (4), I thought that what it sought to do was to overcome a defect which is in the Bill but not in the guidelines, and catch people at an early stage before an item has been shown. The danger of the Obscene Publications Act is that it tends to catch people retrospectively. I understood that subsection (4) was intended to overcome that and to ensure that if there was any belief that an obscene film or obscene footage for a film was in the possession of a television company, that would be an offence. Action could then be taken before the film was shown.
That was a worthy aim, but it seemed to me that the consequences of the measure might extend well beyond

that simple intention. I have therefore listened carefully to the relative merits of amendments Nos. 4 and 5 in order to decide which of the two was more satisfactory. I am not very knowledgable about how television companies work, but I believe that there may be dangers in holding them liable to have committed a criminal offence when the procedures and the safeguards within the television company have not yet been brought into play. As the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) has said, they might inadvertently have some footage that could be deemed to be obscene and which the television contractors, if not the producers or the authority, would not have allowed to be shown. However, it might be possible for someone to be found guilty before those procedures and safeguards had been implemented—or at least for them to be brought to court. That is a difficulty and that is why the deletion of subsection (4) might be the sensible way to prevent this happening.
The parallel with printed material is not a good one, and that is because of the complexities of the procedures within television companies, for which there is no equivalent in the case of publication of a book, where there are only two decision-makers, the author and the publisher. With television material there might be several sets of decision-makers. In the earlier debate, I said that the IBA had prevented the showing of certain films and on that point I shall turn to the possible effect of section 5. Let us suppose that the IBA is considering the showing of a feature film which has come to the IBA with a view to it being shown. I suspect this means it would come within the provisions of amendment No. 5 because it would have been edited and ready for transmission. At that point the IBA would still be about to go through the stage of looking at the film to see whether it was suitable.

Mr. Brinton: My view is that amendment No. 5 could be invoked, but it is much more interesting to cast one's eyes ahead to amendment No. 7. It covers the position about feature films.

Mr. Dubs: I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point. At any rate those are my reasons for thinking that the inclusion of subsection (4) in its entireity poses undersirable dangers and is unnecessary. In relation to subsections (4) and (5) I am not totally convinced either way. Either of them would be acceptable and preferable to leaving subsection (4) in as it stands.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Greg Knight: I beg to move, Amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 6 at end insert—
'(7A) No order for the forfeiture of the said article shall be made if the owner can show that the said article is capable of being shown, played or broadcast in an edited form with the offending scene or scenes removed.'.
In the light of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) I intend to be brief. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has given an undertaking to the House that he is prepared to accept this amendment. The essence of the amendment is to limit forfeiture and some of the points that I had proposed to make were made in the previous debate. Film can be edited but obscene magazines can not.
My next point is that even if a film, when edited, is obscene, if the obscenity is not the central theme but is incidental to the film why should the whole article be forfeited? Why should we not allow those in possession of the film to use an edited version that is still a saleable


product? If the obscenity takes up 10 minutes and the running time of the film is perhaps one to one and a half hours, it is reasonable to allow that film to be retained and not to be forfeited. I am grateful that my hon. Friend has accepted that. The earlier point made by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) is valid here. If, for example, the BBC buys a film for broadcasting and decides that some scenes in the film are not suitable for transmission, I should not like to see the BBC having to forfeit that film even though no scenes of obscenity were to be broadcast.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I doubt whether this threat can be used as a means of forcing re-editing or censorship of existing films. If the amendment is accepted does the hon. Gentleman see a possibility of it being used in that way?

Mr. Knight: No. I see the amendment only as a limit on the right of forfeiture. That is all that it is intended to be. It would prevent films from being seized that could be re-edited, or that are perhaps intended to be re-edited before being shown to the public.
With those brief comments, I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

SPECIAL TEST OF OBSCENITY IN RELATION TO PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF I8

Mr. Dubs: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 17, leave out '18' and insert '16'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 15, in page 3, line 32, leave out '18' and insert '16'.

No. 16, in page 3, line 40, leave out '18' and insert `16'.

No. 17, in page 3, line 42, at end add
`; except that this provision shall not apply in circumstances where the visibility or access is available solely by reason of a person's employment at a place of publication.'.

No. 18, in page 4, line 2, leave out '18' and insert '16'.

No. 24, in title, line 4, leave out '18' and insert '16'.

Mr. Dubs: All the amendments seek to make one change to clause 2. We wish to change the age of 18 to 16 throughout. Of course, clause 2 deals with printed material and specifically with pictures. Its intention is to have a more rigorous test for those age under 18 for material that might be obscene or that might have a tendency to deprave or corrupt. A difficulty arises if the cut-off comes at the age of 18, because a jury would have to look differently at material seen by those aged under 18. It is particularly difficult to draw the line at the age of 18. We would all be very reluctant to allow children to see certain printed material and pictures, but the maturity of teenagers and the responsibilities that come to them both legally and in fact from the age of 16 onwards, make it difficult for any jury to decide that some material is unsuitable for viewing by those aged under 18—for example, by a 17-year-old—but all right for those aged 18 or over. If I was a juror and had to make that decision, I would not know how to react.
Of course, there is some material that should not be published, but we are talking about material that is deemed to be all right for adults but not for children. If the cut-off line was drawn at the age of 16, it would be much more sensible.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman had a simple argument to put. Now that he has put it, will he be good enough to allow us to proceed with the rest of the Bill?

Mr. Dubs: I have been on my feet for only two or two and a half minutes. It is not always obvious that I have been so quickly persuasive as the hon. Gentleman now suggests.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Unlike the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), I cannot follow the logic of the argument. If a jury was asked to assess the effects of such material on a juvenile, it would have to undertake a mind-boggling feat of imagination that would be difficult for any jury, whether the age involved was 15, 16, 17 or 18. Is it not more logical to accept the conventional age of majority, 18, and to say that adulthood begins there? I see no point in splitting hairs or in lowering the age to 16 or 17. What is the logic in inserting the age of 16, when we all now know that the age of majority is 18?

Mr. Dubs: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I do not agree with it. Ultimately, one must take a subjective view of the issue. If I had to serve on a jury, I would find it almost impossible to draw any distinction between the suitability of material for 18-year-olds and the suitability of material for 17-year-olds. The younger the age at which one has to make the distinction, the easier, in some ways, it becomes. That is the purpose of the amendment. After all, the age of consent for heterosexual behaviour is 16. That assumes a certain maturity, and I am applying that criterion to this set of amendments. That is why, on balance—it is a difficult balance to draw—I prefer the age of 16 for the purposes of clause 2

Ms. Clare Short: I support these amendments for the simple reason that it is crazy to allow people to marry at 16 but to prevent them from buying at their local newsagents whatever porny magazines we unfortunately produce in this country.
I have very little patience for the Bill or for those who support it. I do not believe that it will deal with the major problem in society which is worrying people. The Bill's first clause, applying the Obscene Publications Act 1959 to television, will not do much to change anything broadcast on television. It will simply create great uncertainty for the makers of television programmes. We all know that things that are found to be obscene are so extreme that nothing produced on television would be caught within that definition.
The second part of the Bill provides that if porny magazines are supplied, if the amendment is accepted, to anyone under 16, or displayed in a place to which under 16-year-olds have access, there will be a test as to whether these magazines will deprave or corrupt an under 16-year-old.
The likely effect of that is that the porny magazines that are displayed in newsagents will be put in packages. I believe that that would be welcomed, but it is a minor thing. In the meantime, every day of every week, of every year, more than 10 million pictures of naked women deliberately posed in sexually provocative ways are circulated up and down the land to men, women and children. These pictures are seen by at least double that number of adults and by many children. They have a really damaging effect on the population. That is the view of thousands of women.
The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said that he had received nearly 1,000 letters. I have received 3,052 letters and messages of support. Of those, 2,000 were from women and 1,000 from what I would call decent men. Of these letters, 1,241 came from a wide range of organisations—Tory organisations, church organisations, Labour party organisations and trade unions. Spontaneous petitions were collected in towns, cities and villages by women, and these were often supported by men.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose—

Ms. Short: These petitions were supported by men. I shall give way briefly to my hon. Friend, but I wish to complete my point.

Mr. Mitchell: I would like to inquire whether I would come within my hon. Friend's category of decent men? My hon. Friend might like to know that one Conservative Member who did express support for the page 3 girls was criticised by a group of Conservative associations. That was the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Lady is completing her preamble, but we must deal with the amendment. It covers a fairly narrow point—whether the age should be 18 or 16.

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been named by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Whatever views I might have about The Sun newspaper, which I deplore the hon. Gentleman bringing into this debate—

Mr. Mitchell: I bet you do.

Mr. Dickens: —I would like you to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that The Sun newspaper—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed both the hon. Gentlemen to get that matter off their chests. We must now return to the amendments.

Ms. Short: I am discussing the effect of the amendment and what it will allow under 16 year olds to see or prevent them seeing, and what will be and what will not be prosecuted. That is a very important consideration of the Bill as amended.
I received a little more than 50 letters of opposition, 36 of which were obscene. These letters were interestingly obscene in that they followed a pattern. They tended to say "Get lost with your silly proposal," or "You only want to get rid of page 3 because you are jealous".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must be fair to the House and to the sponsor of the amendment. She must not discuss another Bill. She must discuss the Bill under consideration and the amendment.

Ms. Short: I shall explain the way in which I am seeking to discuss the amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to discuss what the amended Bill will provide and what will be allowed to be circulated to those under 16 years of age and what will not. I believe strongly that the distortion of attitudes towards women and towards sex throughout society stems from the mass circulation of pictures of naked women posed deliberately in provocative ways. These pictures are circulated in schools and in

homes and are commonly to be found on kitchen tables, for example. The problem is glaring and massive. Conservative Members claim to support the Bill, a measure that will have only a marginal effect if it is enacted, yet they are opposed to what I am trying to do. I asked the Government Chief Whip not to oppose my proposal and I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) to pay attention to what I am saying. She is being unfair to the House. The amendment before us is a narrow one and the hon. Lady is trying to discuss another Bill, which is grossly out of order. I ask the hon. Lady to take notice of what I am saying.

Ms. Short: Of course I take notice of what you are saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are saying that I must discuss the Bill that is before the House.

Mr. Dickens: The amendment.

Ms. Short: Very well, the amendment to the Bill. The clause provides that certain kinds of porny material cannot be supplied to young people. If the amendment is agreed to, it will be illegal to supply this material to those under 16 years of age, or made available in places where they can obtain it. If it is made available, the test of whether it is obscene will be whether it is likely to deprave and corrupt those under 16 years rather than adults.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the material about which she is speaking is available through daily newspapers with mass circulations to those who are between 16 and 18 years of age, to which the amendment specifically relates?

Ms. Short: I agree with my hon. Friend. Surely it is in order to say that the ill that the clause is trying to remedy will not be dealt with fully by the clause as amended. Surely I can argue that the amendment will improve the clause. I have sat in my place since this morning because I wanted to comment on this part of the Bill. I had views on the earlier amendments but I did not intervene because I felt more strongly about the latter part of the Bill and did not want to take the time of the House by making constant speeches. I am now attempting to make a serious contribution and I am not trying to detain the House. I intend to conclude my remarks before 2.30 pm. Bearing in mind the sort of speeches that have been made, it is surely reasonable for me to ask to be allowed to make my speech.
The Bill's approach, and especially that of the clause, even as amended, is mistaken. There is a problem throughout the country, and women especially are agreed that it exists. There is a decadent attitude to sexuality that is spreading and growing. It is fed by the soft porn that appears in newspapers, which are distributed throughout the country. The definition of "deprave and corrupt" is a bad one. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that the present obscene publications law does not work well. If we add to it through the Bill, it is still not likely to work well. We need to move in another direction. We must move against material that degrades women and human sexuality. That might be a healthier concept.
The Bill will make no difference to the obscenity law. It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) to say that there is a


problem, that people are worried about the mounting tide of sexual crime, that we must do something about it and so we shall agree to any inefficient piece of legislation that is introduced and throw it at the problem to try to pretend to the public that the problem is being dealt with. That is how I see the Bill and the provisions contained within it.
The hon. Member for Davyhulme was not prepared to act on the mass circulation of pictures of naked women in newspapers. It makes me—

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ladywood was back on track until a moment ago. I invite her to return to the amendment.

Ms. Short: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of those who write to Members of Parliament are far more concerned about the degradation of women in popular newspapers, which make a great deal of money from so doing, than about other issues that have been raised by the hon. Member for Davyhulme?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. Lady will not be tempted to answer that. It is not in order on this amendment.

Ms. Short: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North makes his own point and I agree with him. As it is out of order I shall not go down that road.
I asked the hon. Member for Davyhulme to incorporate in the Bill my concern about women's degradation—it is a fight I have been trying to wage—but the hon. Member refused to do so. Many Conservative Members who support the Bill have refused to embrace this issue. We are left with a fairly useless Bill which does not deal with the major problems which we face and, indeed, it looks as if the Bill will not be passed. That is regrettable.

Mr. Churchill: I am obliged to the hon. Lady. I understand her strength of feeling and her grounds for concern. What I find difficult is that, on one hand, the hon. Lady wishes to deal with a much milder form of offensiveness, namely, female nudity, but is not prepared to vote against the explicit pornographic magazines which are made readily available to children and young persons.

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I support clause 2, as amended. I regret that the hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity of his success in the ballot to deal with the most glaring problem, which is distorting attitudes in society. Instead, he has acted against pornographic magazines which are seen by only a small proportion of the population. However, I did support clause 2, as amended.
I have been unable to say all that I wanted to say today. I had hoped that we would reach the Third Reading and then I would have been able to make the speech I had intended to make. Today, the hon. Member for Davyhulme and many of his colleagues have been exposed by the contrary positions they have taken on of the issues in the Bill. They claim to be against pornography and obscenity, yet they will not act against the worst element of it in our society. That is regrettable and it is regrettable that the hon. Member for Davyhulme did not introduce a better Bill.

Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) was in error in one respect when he moved the amendment. My hon. Friend said that amendment No. 12 and the other amendments in the group are concerned with the reduction of the relevant age from 18 years to 16 years. That is not quite right.
Amendment No. 17 makes a separate point. The clause as it stands provides that if a picture available is in a place where a young person may be which may deprave or corrupt that young person, an offence is committed. In general, I agree with that. Amendment No. 17 has become less important with the change from 18 years to 16 years. Many 16 and 17-year-olds may have left school and be working in places where such pictures are available.
It would be absolutely wrong for anybody to be guilty of an offence merely because such a picture is available, not for the purpose of selling it to young people, but because the young person was around that place in the course of his employment. It is true that, by reducing the age to 16, we have cut out the 16 and 17-year-olds working in a particular place.

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just received a voting list and would like your guidance. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) and the Leader of the Opposition have joined in the filibustering on this Bill, which seeks to protect children. Last week, they were both telling the House that Sunday trading—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dickens: Can I finish my point of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Dickens: Last week they were telling the House that the shops issue was the greatest moral issue that the country had known.

Mr. Mikardo: You know very well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is not a point of order. It was not relevant to the discussion but, apart from that, it was a verb good intervention.

Mr. Churchill: rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division:

Mr. Chris Smith: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Chair to accept a closure motion after only a limited debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. I have accepted the closure motion and the House is now coming to a decision on it.

Ms. Clare Short: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to clarify what we are voting on. I understand that we are voting on whether to end discussion on this group of amendments and that, if we do, we will move on to the next group.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is correct.

Mr. Greenway: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you clarify the Bill's future following this Division and any later one? Am I not right in thinking that it will return to the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot anticipate that. We are voting on the closure. If the motion is carried, we shall proceed at once to a conclusion on the amendment under discussion.

Mr. Greenway: (seated and covered): I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The House having divided: Ayes 79, Noes 11.

Division No. 159]
[2.30 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Maclean, David John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Major, John


Bendall, Vivian
Marlow, Antony


Benyon, William
Mather, Carol


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Mellor, David


Bright, Graham
Neubert, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Browne, John
Normanton, Tom


Cash, William
Onslow, Cranley


Chapman, Sydney
Pawsey, James


Churchill, W. S.
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dicks, Terry
Proctor, K. Harvey


Dover, Den
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Durant, Tony
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Roe, Mrs Marion


Favell, Anthony
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Freeman, Roger
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Gow, Ian
Sims, Roger


Grant, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Greenway, Harry
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Sumberg, David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Hayes, J.
Thornton, Malcolm


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Howard, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Wilkinson, John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Wolfson, Mark


Jackson, Robert



Jessel, Toby
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens and


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.


Key, Robert





NOES


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Wareing, Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Foot, Rt Hon Michael



Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Tellers for the Noes:


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Mr. Chris Smith and


Madden, Max
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.


Mikardo, Ian

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 32 (Majority for Closure).

It being after half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.

Private Members' Bills

DOG FIGHTING (PENALTIES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Second Reading what day? No day named.

PENSIONERS' RIGHT TO HEAT, LIGHT AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 June.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speker. You may know which hon. Member makes an objection and from whom you accepted the objection in this matter but others do not. This is of great importance. The Bill affects millions of people in Britain and they have a right to know for what reason the Bill has been opposed yet again in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will know that that matter has been raised many times before. The procedure is that, if I hear an objection, I take that objection. It does not matter from what source it comes. It is the hearing of the objection which matters. That is the procedure.

Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand and accept what you say, but the problem is that hon. Members are not aware who made the objection in this case. It is a matter of public record that an objection has been received. All other entries in Hansard are ascribed to an hon. Member and are so recorded. Why is it different in this case?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is my job to carry out the rules of the House as they exist. If he wishes to have them changed, the correct procedure is for him to suggest that the Select Committee on Procedure should look at this point.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that "Erskine May" lays down that the hon. Member who objects to a Bill is required to rise in his or her place when making an objection?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, that is not the position. As long as the objection is clearly made, the Chair is obliged to take it.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like your guidance on how that ruling has come about. As you rightly said, it has been raised before. Indeed, I have raised it myself in relation to a private Member's Bill to which I put my name some years ago. Since, for many people in Britian, there is no greater obscenity than that old people should go without fuel and light, which it is the object of this Bill to eradicate, we need an answer to the question whether people have a right to object or whether it is only by convention—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He has raised it before when I have been in the Chair. As I have said to the House, this is a


well-established procedure and it is the job of the chair to carry out the procedures of the House. If hon. Members want to have those procedures changed, there is a course open to them. But it would be wholly wrong for me to, as it were, do a private enterprise operation and alter the procedures of the House. I must abide by the procedures which have been laid down by the House and that is exactly what I am doing.

Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member for Newham, North-West making a different point of order? I have dealt fully with that point of order.

Mr. Banks: Yes, Sir. That—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have a different point of order? If he does not, I am not prepared to rule a third time.

Mr. Banks: It is related, Sir, but it is different. The point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr.Corbyn) was that hon. Members are entitled, for their own information, to know who has raised an objection. That is the point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with that. If hon. Members do not like the existing procedures, I have explained the correct course which is open for them to follow.

Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not seek to challenge your ruling, but I wonder if any Conservative Members ought to catch your eye to identify themselves as being opposed to this progressive Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are on the same point. I have given my ruling and there is nothing further I can add. I do understand the points which hon. Members are making and I have given a clear outline of the way in which they can proceed.

IMMIGRATION ACT 1971 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 June.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Notwithstanding your earlier rulings, which I fully understand and appreciate, may I ask for your guidance in circumstances where a Bill is not opposed when leave was sought to introduce it? That was the case with this Bill of mine, which seeks to give a right of appeal to visitors who are refused entry to this country. When there was no opposition to a Bill when it was introduced, do you believe that the ruling that you have given should still apply? Surely, if there was opposition to the Bill it should have been demonstrated by the person who has today objected to it, so that the arguments of that person could have been deployed and the House could have been given the opportunity of voting on this important measure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but the rule still applies.

INDECENT DISPLAYS (NEWSPAPERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day" No day named.

TOBACCO PRODUCTS (SPORTS SPONSORSHIP) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [21 February].

Hon. Members: Object.

Ms. Clare Short: On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must complete proceedings on this Bill first.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 2 May.

Ms. Clare Short: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is relevant to the points of order raised before. Obviously, any of us who have gone to the trouble to introduce a Bill are interested in who objects to it from the Conservative Benches. You moved so fast that, as I simply moved around to try to see who objected, you had moved on and not allowed me to name a day. The day I wanted to give was 13 June and I am grateful to you for accepting it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accept the hon. Lady's date of 13 June.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) was the one who opposed that Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not in order for hon. Members to try to have a debate on this. I have told hon. Members the procedures which we follow and I have given a clear indication of the course of action that is open to them if they object to the procedures.

REDUNDANT CHURCHES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS (AMENDMENT) BELL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

POLICE COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I am trying to make that very point, Sir. With the leave of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 9 May.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I beg the hon. Member's pardon.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 May.

MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES OF RELATIONSHIP) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 May.

COMPANY POLITICAL DONATIONS (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

Prosecution Policy

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Mr. Graham Bright: I am grateful for this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the tragic death of my constituent, Mr. John Williams. He was one of the many young men and women whose lives and careers have been cut short by the criminals who exploit the spread of drugs in Britain. It is impossible to measure the harm that has been caused to the families of such victims. Their suffering, which I know is understood throughout the House, makes deterrent action by the police, the prosecuting authorities and the courts essential.
Had it not been for the remarkable courage of John Williams's family and, in particular, of his mother, in bringing a private prosecution for manslaughter, the criminal justice system would have failed completely. The role of the Director of Public Prosecutions in these events has to be clearly justified and explained.
The circumstances of John Williams's death were particularly distressing. During a visit with friends to a flat in Dumfries court, Luton on the evening of 2 September, 1982, he was persuaded by the occupant, Gary Austin, to try an injection of a drug called Palfium, which is usually given in tablet form to relieve the pain of cancer sufferers. Austin gave him this injection at about 7 pm, John Williams collapsed almost at once and, according to the medical evidence, died shortly thereafter.
For the rest of that evening, Austin prevented any expert help being sought by those present in the flat. Some of them even went out to local bars and an off-licence. It was not until 11 pm, that Austin decided to have the body removed. It was left in the street outside propped against a wall, where it was found at about 11.15 pm by the ambulancemen Austin had summoned under a false name.
On arrival at the Luton and Dunstable Hospital, John Williams was found to be dead.
The subsequent police inquiries revealed that the drugs given to him had been stolen from a chemist's shop in Crewe by a man called Peter Panko. Both Panko and Austin were arrested and charged. The post-mortem conducted by Dr. Tan, the pathologist, revealed the presence of Palfium in John Williams's blood, admittedly at a relatively low level compared to that of patients taking the drug therapeutically.
This evidence, it is worth stating, was sufficiently convincing for the jury at the inquest held in June 1983 to bring in a unanimous verdict of unlawful killing. But although Panko was convicted of theft and of supplying the drugs at Bedford Crown court in March 1983, Austin was charged only with possessing dangerous drugs and with theft. The two men were sentenced to terms of five and three years' imprisonment, respectively. To the surprise of the Bedfordshire police and to the amazement of Mr. and Mrs. Williams, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided that no other charge could be brought. It was a decision to which he was to adhere throughout until he was forced to change his mind.
I have set out the facts as clearly and as objectively as I can. Of course, I accept that criminal prosecution can take place only when there is sufficient evidence to make conviction likely. No one's interests are served by poorly mounted prosecutions resulting in inevitable acquittals.
The disquieting feature of this case is that no public action was taken until new evidence had been privately assembled and leave obtained from the magistrates' court to bring a rare private prosecution for manslaughter. There are, therefore, some extremely serious questions about the conduct of this case which have to be answered if public concern is to be satisfied.
First, there is the issue of the evidence from the post-mortem conducted by Dr. Tan. Presumably, what he told the inquest jury—that John Williams's death was due to heart failure and that this did not occur spontaneously in a healthy person—was also told to the police. Logically, to use his own words, there had to have been an unnatural cause of death. He was perfectly clear about the presence of Palfium in John Williams's blood. No other possible cause of death was mentioned.
Mr. Peter Corderoy, the senior scientific officer from the Home Office laboratory at Aldermaston, testified that deaths had been recorded from the injection of relatively small amounts of the drug. There was some published evidence already available from the work of Dr. Patrick Toseland, the specialist at Guy's hospital, to show that deaths had occurred with levels of Palfium in the blood even lower than that recorded in John Williams's case.
I am bound to ask my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to explain what happened when the DPP and his officials first looked at the medical evidence. Which experts, apart from Dr. Tan and Dr. Toseland, were consulted and what was their view of the reason for the death? Was it ever suggested to or by them that John Williams had taken Palfium on the morning of his death? If such a suggestion was made, who put it forward? The police's inquiries and the evidence at the inquest, so far as I am aware, revealed nothing of the sort. Were they aware of the distinction between the oral method of administering the drug which, due to its slower passage into the blood stream, permits higher levels to be tolerated and the more dramatic effects of injecting it?
There is a further point that I must raise here. In a letter to me on the 12 December 1984, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, explained that the DPP reached his decision not to prosecute Gary Austin in 1982. The police officers dealing with the case at Luton did not learn of this until 11 March, 1983. Austin had been remanded in custody since his arrest because it was thought more serious charges might be preferred. This delay in informing the police has to be explained.
I have been equally concerned to learn that Austin was informed by the DPP then—and again in September 1983—that no prosecution for manslaughter would occur. The failure, moreover, of the DPP to offer any rationale for his decision to John Williams's parents at that time was quite mystifying. It left them without hope of justice. Their anguish and distress was inevitably increased by the inquest proceedings in June, 1983. The verdict of "unlawful killing" returned by the jury convinced them that criminal proceedings against Austin were possible.
I know that the DPP looked at the case again, that he took further advice from counsel and that he adhered to his original view, that, without better scientific evidence, no prosecution could succeed. But simply informing Mr. and Mrs. Williams and their solicitor that his unexplained decision stood was hardly satisfactory. No explanation of the need for a more specific link betwen the injection of the drug and John Williams's death was offered until

December, 1983, six months after the inquest and at least a year after the DPP's original decision. Once again, I find that delay exceptionally difficult to understand.
Every parent will know why Mrs. Williams refused to accept the DPP's decision. In fact, she was prepared to go out and pay for the necessary inquiries to be conducted by medical researchers. One expert had already informed her that he was convinced that Palfium had killed her son and that Austin should have been charged. By July, 1984, more specific evidence was available. Dr. Toseland had been able to analyse how the injection of the drug paralysed the brain centres controlling the heart very shortly after it entered the bloodstream. Taken in tablet form, it opperated much more slowly and much higher levels could be tolerated. That was the key piece of work which ultimately unlocked the case.
Naturally, that analysis and the supporting views of Professor Spector, the head of the department of pharmacology at Guy's hospital, were forwarded to the DPP. Both men were prepared to state their views in public. I know that the Luton police and the DPP's representatives heard the new evidence directly from Dr. Toseland at a conference in the town on 2 Ooctober, 1984. What is more, Dr. Tan, the pathologist who had conducted the post-mortem, had been contacted by Dr. Toseland and was prepared to state that, in the light of his research, there could have been no other cause of death than the injection of Palfium. Professor Spector himself expressed the identical view in a further conference at Guy's hospital on 22 October 1984. Both Dr. Toseland and Professor Spector were sure that the possibility of John Williams having taken Palfium on the morning of his death was irrelevant.
The DPP's subsequent observations that no proceedings could be brought against Austin because the new evidence was not good enough to link the injection of the drug to the victim's death make remarkable reading. What or who was his authority for this view? Even when Dr. Tan's letter to the Luton coroner in April 1985 with its explicit statement that it was now his oponion that
the death of John Williams was the direct effect of an intravenous injection of Palfium
came into the DPP's hands, nothing was done. If his opinion was sound enough for the DPP to rely on in not bringing a prosecution in late 1982 or early 1983, why was his revised view not valid enough to start one in 1985? I cannot accept that an undertaking given on the basis of medical knowledge in 1983 not to prosecute was still binding when new medical evidence was available.
It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to understand why the professional judgments of the pathologist who conducted the post-mortem and of two of the country's leading experts in this field of medicine were rejected by the DPP and his colleagues. I have no doubt that they were afraid that a prosecution would fail. Why this was their view has to be explained.
There is equally no doubt that they were wrong. It is greatly to the credit of Mrs. Pauline Williams that she has the courage, after all the setbacks that she had suffered in her struggle for justice, to bring her private prosecution against Gary Austin. The Magistrates before whom she made her application were convinced that there was a case to answer. It was her largely unaided efforts and the testimony of her expert witnesses that resulted in the case going to trail at the Crown court. The jury there brought in a unanimous verdict of guilt against Austin. I cannot


think of a more complete vindication of one person's determination to see justice done, however inadequate the sentence passed.
The struggle that Mr. and Mrs. Williams have endured to ensure that the criminal justice system worked has won them great respect, but they have had to pay a high price for it. They have sacrificed their time and money and a great deal of effort to get it. Mrs. Williams has been attacked and threatened. It is a matter of absolute principle that these costs—for legal representation at the inquest and in the magistrates' court, for the costs of transcripts, photographs, telephone bills and scientific tests, for the cost of letters, envelopes and stationery—should be met from public funds. So, too, should the charges of her solicitor. Is there any possibility of some compensation for Mrs. Williams for the thousands of hours that she has spent in marshalling the evidence. Whatever charges are incurred in altering the terms in which the coroner's inquisition recorded her son's cause of death ought also to be met from public funds. This is a matter on which her judgment was not only better than the DPP's but on which she was proved absolutely right.
Unfortunately, this tragic case has revealed the weaknesses of our system more clearly than its strengths. As long as drugs are available from criminal sources, other families are in danger of suffering similar tragedies. That is why it is so important that those who have the responsibility for initiating prosecutions exercise it correctly. There were grounds enough for questioning whether the right decision was made by the DPP in the autumn of 1982. It is alarming that nothing—not the verdict of the inquest jury, not the new medical evidence supplied by Dr. Toseland and his colleagues, not even the pathologist's explicit change of view, could persuade the DPP to change his mind. The outcome shows that his judgment was mistaken. Had it not been for the existence of the right to bring a criminal prosecution, justice would never have been done to John Williams or his family. The failure of the responsible public authorities to act must be fully explained and justified if our confidence is to be sustained. That is the fundamental issue that the death of John Williams raises.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) on securing this opportunity to raise an important matter in the House. Although my hon. Friend has very properly been concerned with the matter over a long period, in the interest of his constituents, it raises wider considerations. My hon. Friend's presentation of the matter today has again been a model of fairness and care.
I agree strongly with my hon. Friend's opening remarks in which he condemned the evil nature and consequences of the criminal exploitation of drug abuse in this country. The death of his young constituent John Williams in 1982 constituted a tragic addition to the grim toll. Parliament has provided stern penalties for those convicted of offences of such a nature. The strict enforcement of the law by means of prosecution in every proper case is a policy to which the Director of Public Prosecutions rightly attaches the highest importance. That is a policy to which the Director of Public Prosecutions rightly attaches the highest importance. In that approach he has the full

concurrence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. The public would rightly expect nothing less. No one need expect a lenient attitude on the part of the DPP. I shall come in a moment to the evidence in this case that was available at material times to the Director to place before a court, including the expert medical evidence bearing on the crucial question of the cause of John Williams's death.
I shall, of course, answer my hon. Friend's question, but, first, I must acknowledge gratefully what my hon. Friend fairly said in an early passage in his speech. He said:
Of course, I accept that criminal prosecution can take place only when there is sufficient evidence to make conviction likely.
That is correct, and it forms an important part of the guidelines for prosecutors published by the Attorney-General in February 1982 and deposited in the Library.
Justice must be even handed and it would be a cause for complaint if the formidable prosecuting power of the State were to be exercised against a citizen where, to take a purely hypothetical example, it was thought useful to clear the air by means of a public trial. In all criminal proceedings arising from an unlawful killing, the onus rests on the prosecution to prove guilt. The standard of proof required is that guilt shall be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the prosecutor has initially to assess the likely outcome of a prosecution by reference to this high standard. In the case of John Williams's death, a finding of guilt against Gary Austin demanded that the prosecution should prove beyond reasonable doubt that death was caused by Austin injecting him with Palfium. I have already described this as the crucial factor, and from the outset the prosecutor's difficulties centred here.
My hon. Friend asked when the Director's officials first looked at the medical evidence. The professional officer assigned to the case had three meetings with Dr. Tan, the pathologist who carried out the post-mortem examination, the last of which was also attended by counsel. These meetings took place on 23 November 1982 and on 26 January and 23 February 1983. On each of those occasions Dr. Tan was pressed as to whether he could say that the cause of John Williams's death was the injection with Palfium. He repeatedly replied that he was unable to say what the cause of death was. He could only affirm that the mode of John Williams's death was pulmonary oedema.
The Director consulted a further expert, a question asked by my hon. Friend, additional to Dr. Tan and Dr. Toseland and that was Mr. Neville Dunnett, an expert in toxicology and drugs at Aldermaston. On the basis of the expert evidence available to him at that time, the Director concluded that a prosecution was likely to fail for lack of the necessary proof of causation.
My hon. Friend referred to Mr. Peter Corderoy, the senior scientific officer at Aldermaston. I have seen a transcript of his evidence at the inquest. He said:
It is impossible to say whether the amount of drug in a 5 or 10 mg tablet if taken by intravenous injection would prove fatal or not. I cannot say that it would or would not prove fatal.".
He did however say, after dealing with the ill-effects to be expected, that a person could acquire a tolerance to Palfium, and that factor too had relevance to the Director's decision. It brings in a further question asked by my honourable friend: was it suggested that John Williams had previously taken Palfium on the day of his death?
Statements had been made to the police by Mark Clews and Anthony Denton providing strong evidence that that indeed had been the case.
The Director concluded, on a review of all the circumstances that a prosecution would be likely to fail and he so informed the police. There was no delay in informing the police of the Director's first decision. There was a final meeting with Dr. Tan, which counsel attended on 23 February 1983, and after that counsel advised. His advice is dated 2 March 1983. The Director then considered the advice, and informed the police of his decision by letter, dated 14 March. I apologise to my hon. Friend that a letter to him from me gave a misleading impression in this respect.
My hon. Friend has asked why Mrs. Williams was not informed of the reason for the Director's decision. The Director, in a letter to the chief constable of Bedfordshire, who had reported the facts of the case to him, gave his reasons for concluding that a prosecution for any offence relating to the death of John Williams would not succeed and advised the chief constable against such proceedings. That letter was not confidential, but it is the Director's policy not to publish reasons for his decisions, especially where he has decided not to prosecute. I think that for reasons of fairness, that policy is correct. I can very well appreciate, however, the feelings experienced by Mrs. Williams and her family, which my hon. Friend has described, and I much regret them.
I can understand only too readily how those feelings would have been exacerbated after the inquest's verdict in July 1983. The coroner's jury was evidently satisfied as to causation. That, however, did not relieve the Director of the responsibility of applying the standard of proof that would be required in a criminal court. The transcript records Dr. Tan as having been asked:
As far as your post mortem is concerned, is it possible for you to bridge the gap between the administration of an injection and the death as a result of pulmonaryoedema?
Dr. Tan replied: "It is not possible". The Director's opinion, having further consulted experienced counsel after the inquest's verdict, accordingly remained unchanged.
It was not until 1984 that any significant advance was made—to the knowledge of the Director—in the state of medical knowledge about the actions of Palfium. My hon. Friend has asked whether the Director was aware of any difference between the effects of oral and intravenous administration of that drug. In 1983 no such information was available to him.
It was not until after Dr. Toseland's letter to Mrs. Williams, dated 16 July 1984, reached the DPP in September of that year that he became aware of any difference. Dr. Toseland's views, expressed in that letter, were far from firm conclusions. He said:
If it can be shown that this was the first time your son had been injected with Palfium then it can be stated he would have no protection from a first administered dose, and that the amount injected is only as important as the speed of the injection.
I have already referred to the evidence in that regard.
Dr. Toseland conferred with a member of the Director's staff on 2 October 1984, but at a conference with Professor Spector on 24 October much stronger views as to causation were put forward. I believe that it is fair to say that from 24 October 1984 onwards—that is, two years after John Williams's death—there was a prima facie case against Austin. Why, then, were proceedings not begun?
I must here refer to another factor that was now faced by the Director. When the decision has been taken not to prosecute a suspect, it is normal for the suspect to be so informed. I believe that to be fair. The Director has taken the view—I believe it to be generally fair—that once a suspect has been so informed, that decision should not remain open for reappraisal and possible reversal, however long a period may elapse. In very rare cases where there is still a practical possibility that further facts sufficient to incriminate the suspect may be uncovered, the decision is expressed to have been taken only on the present state of the evidence. I can tell my hon. Friend that the Director has agreed to revise his practice in this regard. If, on a review of each relevant case, it appears that the public interest would be served by a prosecution in all the circumstances, this policy will be overriden. However, I must emphasise that that action will be taken only in exceptional circumstances and I think that my hon. Friend would understand that.
In the case of Austin, the suspect had twice been informed that he would not be prosecuted—the second time being after the inquest verdict in 1983. The Director considered that his policy as to double jeopardy should be observed in the case of Austin after a careful review of the circumstances.
No one can fail to salute the determination of Mrs. Williams to secure a criminal trial and the courage with which she pursued that aim. Once the magistrates' court had found that there was a case to answer and had committed Austin to trial, the Director stepped in and took over the case. The outcome is well known.
I would now like to consider the question of Mrs. Williams's costs. The matters outlined by my hon. Friend have formed the subject of a claim for costs which was taxed by the clerk at Luton magistrate's court. It is fair to say that Mrs. Williams's costs, as claimed in the magistrates' court; either have been paid in full or will be paid in full. It is also fair to say that I know that there is an outstanding claim for costs in relation to the time which Mrs. Williams has spent on preparing the case. Apparently, some 6,000 hours was spent on that. The courts have ruled that a private prosecutor cannot be reimbursed out of central funds for time spent on the preparation of a case. The Director has no funds for the making of such payments, nor is there any precedent for doing so. I regret that I can accordingly offer no prospect of reimbursement.
However, with regard to the question of the costs of the application to the High Court, in connection with the amendment to the death certificate which Mrs. Williams has also requested, I am able to say that the Attorney-General has agreed to act for Mrs. Williams ex officio and therefore no costs will be incurred by her in respect of that application.
I have referred to the change in the Director of Public Prosecution's future policy. I only wish to add that, as a safeguard, no reversal of a decision not to prosecute will take place without the express authority of the Director or Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions.
In conclusion, these decisions are always exceptionally difficult for the Director and his staff to take. In this case, the decisions were taken after the most careful and conscientious deliberation and they were taken for the reasons that I have given. I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to explain the


background to the Director's decisions in this most painful case, which has caused Mrs. Williams and her family such understandable anguish.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Three o' clock.